Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
well as the advertisement next to it.

Comments are solicited. ;-)

jon

Date: 25 Nov 2006 18:05:53
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?

Date: 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

muddy@despammed.com wrote:
> I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
> advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
> innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
> them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
> paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?
>
No, but you could call it a Lexus ;-)
Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.
Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
what they're buying?
Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
isn't very good at customer support.
My $0.02

Shawn

Date: 26 Nov 2006 05:58:03
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@fixthenumberscomcast.net > wrote:

>Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
>domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.
>Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
>what they're buying?
>Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
>business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
>(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
>ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
>isn't very good at customer support.
>My $0.02

It's already cost RCOS a sale. I had planned on a 24" RC from them in
the next year or two. No more, however- this isn't a company I want to
deal with anymore.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> however- this isn't a company I want to
> deal with anymore.

And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
get rid of CI through unrthical means either...

AM

Date: 26 Nov 2006 14:48:52
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
>get rid of CI through unrthical means either...

Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
(and I think its arguable) the name of a particular optical system.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:04:29
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> (and I think its arguable) the name of a particular optical system.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Ok.
I personally think both are just as bad.
Well... maybe Meade worse, they just flat
out tried to run CI out of $$ and business.
And Meade really could have afforded to call
their new design something else.
I would prefer an RCOS telescope over a Meade tho.

Personally, it is disgusting the US business model
of trying to sue your competition out of business...

AM

(on another different Mac... I have three now...)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:20:25
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:04:29 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>I would prefer an RCOS telescope over a Meade tho.

Technically, so would I. And the fact that Meade is making a scope they
call an RC variant has in no way changed my plans to acquire a true RC
fairly soon. I have a very good idea of what I'll get with an RCX versus
a high-end RC. No confusion at all (even though RCOS apparently thinks
I'm confused <g >).

>Personally, it is disgusting the US business model
>of trying to sue your competition out of business...

Yup. Although more often (and this may include the Meade vs Celestron
fight) it's about using the courts to leverage IP licensing trades.
Still disgusting, though. What's wrong with negotiating such things
privately?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:33:18
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> What's wrong with negotiating such things
> privately?

Whats wrong with making a GOOD product and
then selling it on it's virtues ?

One thing I learned about business a long time ago.
You never badmouth the competition, you just
sell yourself (your products) If you have to go after
the competition via legal means, you are doing something
terribly wrong.

None of this helps our hobby at all...

AM

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:56:52
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:33:18 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>> What's wrong with negotiating such things
>> privately?
>
>Whats wrong with making a GOOD product and
>then selling it on it's virtues ?

I didn't mean negotiating disputes privately, I meant negotiating patent
license exchanges privately. Such exchanges are critical to doing
business in today's world, where (literally!) one company has a patent
on "using a screw to attach an encoder" and another has a patent on
"using a rivet to attach an encoder". It's almost impossible to make a
good product anymore without stepping on some petty patent somewhere.

Rather than negotiating trades, companies all too often sue for patent
infringement, with no intention other than forcing an IP trade. It's a
waste of resources for everyone involved.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:kobjm21pc56efu8q1fn70nsafotktputgd@4ax.com...
<snip >
> Yup. Although more often (and this may include the Meade vs Celestron
> fight) it's about using the courts to leverage IP licensing trades.
> Still disgusting, though. What's wrong with negotiating such things
> privately?

Although the participants are private companies, the harm caused by claims
about Meade's conduct, if true, are primarily to the free market in general,
or more specifically, the astronomical public.

One of the cardinal and hard-won prinicples of our American economy is open
and fair competition. To this end, Congress and almost all states have
passed consumer protection statutes, also known as unfair consumer practices
laws. Central to preserving a free-market economy based on open and fair
competition is preventing companies from falsely labeling products as having
superior performance or being of a superior design in order to sell products
of lesser quality at inflated prices. Unethical business conduct in the
form of false advertising claims harms the public and the free market - not
just the businesses involved.

Although this particular instance of conduct by Meade, if proven true, only
effects a small consumer market of wealthy individuals, as general
prinicple, if true, similar unethical business conduct, IMHO, should always
be combated for its prophylactic effect on other companies who seek to gain
ill-gotten profits by unfair trade and deceptive practices. The Federal
Trade Commission and many state consumer protection units, regularly file
suits against companies engaged in deceptive and anticompetitive market
conduct.

In terms of protecting free market principles, the suit posted on Rod
Mollise's blogspot raises an important deceptive advertising issue, again
assuming that claims made regarding Meade's conduct are true - which may not
be the case. http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/images/RC_vs_Meade.pdf

Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
that I can afford to buy.

The public issue of interest is not so much about tactical patent lawsuits
as protecting fair competition, the marketplace and consumers from deceptive
advertising regarding product performance.

Clear skies - Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 22:39:07
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54 -0700, "canopus56"
<canopus56@NOyahooSPAM.com > wrote:

>Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
>principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
>they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
>their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
>would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
>that I can afford to buy.

Yes, but it isn't clear to me that any deceptive claims were made here.
There is no real precedent for how generic optical designs are named in
commerce, particularly when modified with adjectives like "enhanced".
Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact, made available,
and the RCX design appears to have better optical performance in many
respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read the posted lawsuit,
and I simply don't see how anybody was harmed, either the public or
RCOS.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:42:53
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in
news:ni5km2lg64h2jj2bid82gljglpqlhecrfh@4ax.com:

> "enhanced". Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact,
> made available, and the RCX design appears to have better optical
> performance in many respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read

An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade design
really works well.

And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
_misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a cute but
not believable character.

--
Pierre

Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:00:43
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:T2Jah.10311$yE6.6406@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

>> An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
>> beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade
>> design really works well.
>
> Then you probably still believe in Santa Claus <g>

I don't see Meade customers filing complaints for poor performance.

> "Improved Ritchey Chretien" That is easily misconstrued as to mean...
>
> Improved = Better than an RCOS

They didn't say "improved RCOS" - as far as I know, RCOS doesn't own the
"Ritchey Chretien" name. Misleading, maybe, but that is customers that
should complain, if they feel they were misled. But it is hard to see
anyone buying a RCX without a minimum of research, without having read at
least a review, and it is hard to see a review that doesn't mention the
uncertainties surrounding the nature of the optical design.

> seem to like them and compare them with a *real* Ritchey even though
> they have no experience with one.

If one compares the results, one doesn't need to have first hand
experience with the scope. One only needs to look at images produced by
both systems.

> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA. A who's who
> glance at the owners list of RCOS would support this thought.

To some point, I agree, and that is the way it should be. This being
said, improvements in design, industrial processes etc.. can and usually
do change the equation over time.

>> And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
>> _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a
>> cute but not believable character.

> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.

Have you actually read the complaint? He is simply too much.

> It's easy to see this unless one has Meade tattooed on their ass. And
> fans of the SCT can take solace in the fact that Celestron seems to be
> above this type of skulduggery.

While I do own an ETX 125 that I don't actually use, I also have a C11, a
Vixen R200SS, a couple of apos and a Lichtenknecker Flat Field camera: I
can fairly state that I don't even own a virtual Meade tatoo ;)

In fact, I decided to avoid Meade as much as it is possible when they
sued Celestron.

> could be large. And while Meade may not sell many to private
> individuals the sale of scopes to Universities and such is much more
> lucrative.

And I don't expect universities to make uninformed purchases or send
repeated e-mails to "someones@yahoo.com" asking them if they are buying
"Hubble like performance". If universities are happy with large scopes
from Meade, why wouldn't the general public also be?

As a customer, I am trending towards the high-end (going from ETX to FFC
in a few years) and would probably purchase a RC if I had a fixed setup
under decent skies. What this lawsuit achieved, afaic, is to give a bit
more credit to Meade's offer.

What comes next? Bisque suing Meade on the looks of their high end
robotic mount?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 04:47:32
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

>
> I don't see Meade customers filing complaints for poor performance.
>

Pierre,

From my understanding one of the complainants *is* a Meade customer. Or
was :(

>> "Improved Ritchey Chretien" That is easily misconstrued as to mean...
>>
>> Improved = Better than an RCOS
>
> They didn't say "improved RCOS" - as far as I know, RCOS doesn't own the
> "Ritchey Chretien" name. Misleading, maybe, but that is customers that
> should complain, if they feel they were misled.

I never inferred that Meade said this. But the statement "Improved
Ritchey Chretien Design" needs some validation. Most people would
consider that "improved" must be better. Otherwise why improve it ?!?!
And that statement may or may not be true. But it is at least
questionable. Had Meade marketed this as being an improved SCT no one
would have given a rats ass about the claim. I'm reasonably certain that
Celestron wouldn't have filed a suit over it.

> But it is hard to see
> anyone buying a RCX without a minimum of research, without having read at
> least a review, and it is hard to see a review that doesn't mention the
> uncertainties surrounding the nature of the optical design.

Really ? there are literally hundreds of just such purchases made every
year and little or no research was apparently done. Or more likely the
experience level of the person making the decision was lacking. The
price tag means little here. People still make bad decisions even on
expensive items. You, or I might not. But others do.

>
>> seem to like them and compare them with a *real* Ritchey even though
>> they have no experience with one.
>
> If one compares the results, one doesn't need to have first hand
> experience with the scope. One only needs to look at images produced by
> both systems.

Sorry but I don't agree. Electronic images can be manipulated in a
myriad of ways to cover up a multitude of sins. So this isn't proof at
all. But I don't see anyone selling a *real* RC to purchase an RCX
either. But I might have missed it. <g >

>
>> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA. A who's who
>> glance at the owners list of RCOS would support this thought.
>
> To some point, I agree, and that is the way it should be. This being
> said, improvements in design, industrial processes etc.. can and usually
> do change the equation over time.

Exactly.... Meade's RCX is a much improved SCT design in a number of
ways. And of course, a dismal failure in others. But those failures have
little to do with the actual optics. Chris is correct that Meade
generally produces good optics. Their problems generally lie elsewhere.

>
>>> And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
>>> _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a
>>> cute but not believable character.
>
>> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.
>
> Have you actually read the complaint? He is simply too much.

I am not an attorney but I have glanced through it and spoken with two
of the complainants and understand their position.

>
>> It's easy to see this unless one has Meade tattooed on their ass. And
>> fans of the SCT can take solace in the fact that Celestron seems to be
>> above this type of skulduggery.
>
> While I do own an ETX 125 that I don't actually use, I also have a C11, a
> Vixen R200SS, a couple of apos and a Lichtenknecker Flat Field camera: I
> can fairly state that I don't even own a virtual Meade tatoo ;)

This is a *good* thing ! <g >

>
> In fact, I decided to avoid Meade as much as it is possible when they
> sued Celestron.

A wise man. I too became less enamored of them because of this. But I
have no false hopes that Meades bottom line even noticed my non
participation <lol >

> As a customer, I am trending towards the high-end (going from ETX to FFC
> in a few years) and would probably purchase a RC if I had a fixed setup
> under decent skies. What this lawsuit achieved, afaic, is to give a bit
> more credit to Meade's offer.

Then buy the Meade and report back to all of us how much better it is
than a real RC.

>
> What comes next? Bisque suing Meade on the looks of their high end
> robotic mount?
>

Hummmmmm interesting that you noticed the similarity.... What if Ford
decided to come out with a car that had the BMW trademark grill ? Think
that BMW wouldn't sue ? Would they have the right to do so ? In my
opinion Bisque could sue them. As to if they would actually win ? who
knows. But I would never spend that kind of money on a Meade mount. Not
until they proved to me they could manufacture one that actually worked.
But I'll freely admit to being very cynical about Meades ability to
produce a mount that is in the same class as a AP1200, Bisque or MI750.

Regards

Bill

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:36:57
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:EbPah.10401$yE6.9009@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Sorry but I don't agree. Electronic images can be manipulated in a
> myriad of ways to cover up a multitude of sins. So this isn't proof at

I thought you would agree on that one, since you told me earlier to look
at what imagers were publishing on a web as a proof of the superiority of
the RCOS scopes (and I actually agree).

Why would the "pretty image" test be a proof of RCOS superiority?

Pretty images are exactly what RCOS resellers use as a promotional tool
btw

see http://www.atscope.com.au/rcos.html

for example.

I agree that there is much more to it, as the quality of the focuser, the
thermal stability of the design, the stability of collimation, lack of
mirro flop etc... but still, the argument appears valid.

> have little to do with the actual optics. Chris is correct that Meade
> generally produces good optics. Their problems generally lie
> elsewhere.

Apparently that is not the focus of the lawsuit. BTW <chuckles > a good
lawsuit against meade would be a "rusting nuts and bolts" class action.

> Then buy the Meade and report back to all of us how much better it is
> than a real RC.

Well, most of the arguments so far have been about Meade's poor QC,
inferior mechanics, etc... I agree with them, and probably will stay away
of them (because of the lawsuit, because of the fact that I live in
Europe, where support/warranty coverage for Meade stuff is awful). But
the lawsuit is basically about optics.

> Hummmmmm interesting that you noticed the similarity.... What if Ford
> decided to come out with a car that had the BMW trademark grill ?
> Think that BMW wouldn't sue ? Would they have the right to do so ? In

Well the machined look of the Paramount, while unique (at least I think
so) in the astronomical mount market, isn't something particularly
innovative and unique in general - may industrial robots have the same
look.

The last time I asked my reseller, Bisque seemed to have a full pipe-
line. They might be too busy innovating, doing QC and developing stuff. I
can't help but believe that it would be better for the amateur
astronomical community if those lawsuits did not happen.

And, when the dust settles, could we again see clever Chinese pick up the
pieces? ;-)

Date: 27 Nov 2006 22:24:36
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...

But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
about.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...
>
> But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
> in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
> makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
> most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
> about.
>

Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

Thank You

Bill

Date: 27 Nov 2006 23:34:27
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
>improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
>Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
"BS Marketing Hype".

But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not. The suit has
nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now. We'll see what happens in the
courts.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 02:24:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
> "BS Marketing Hype".
>
> But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
> not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not.

Chris,

Not to be pedantic but it does matter because you parroted the Meade
hype as fact. Which has yet to be demonstrably proven. Look at the
complainants in the aforementioned action and you can bet your knickers
that at least one of those complainants has information regarding the
actual RCX design that must support their position. But I'll freely
admit that a number of people will view this suit as frivolous as is
their right. Probably as frivolous as Meades suit against Celestron <g >.

> The suit has
> nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
> because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
> description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
> Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now.

I don't expect you to agree with this mind you <g > but that is a gross
oversimplification of the suit. One of the complainants feels like he
*was* led astray by one of the vendors and this position was likely
fueled by the Meade advertising. You appear to be, in my opinion,
fixated on Brad's involvement, neglecting the other two parties concerns
with this. One of whom *was* a Meade customer.

But even with all of that being said I can respect the fact that you
like Meade products. However there are many, many disillusioned amateurs
out there who are frustrated by Meade equipment and various design flaws
over the years. And you cannot discount the popularity of the RCOS
scopes by those advanced amateurs having purchased them.

> We'll see what happens in the courts.

Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.
So at some level I actually agree with you, should we notify the media ?
<g > But it will probably at least provide some insight into the
marketing strategies of both companies and give us a lot of things to
discuss along the way. And this is *good* thing. A lot more people will
be familiar with what a Ritchey actually is too.

To restate my position on this to clarify things..... I thought it
ludicrous that Meade hyped the RCX and the LX200R as "advanced Ritchey
Chretien Optics. I read all of the Meade provided information and became
even more cynical after doing so. And I certainly would not refrain
from buying an RCOS because of this suit. *If* I felt that Meade was the
better product I'd buy that, or an OGS or whatever.

Regards

Bill

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:54:59
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:41 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>But even with all of that being said I can respect the fact that you
>like Meade products...

Actually, I'm not terribly impressed with Meade. I think they make great
optics (and I do think it's very possible that an RCX scope could
outperform a classical RC on paper- not surprising, since an SCT can do
that, too), but they have lousy QC and to get everything out of one of
their products generally requires additional effort on the part of the
buyer. That's too bad, and it shouldn't be that way, but for whatever
reason Meade has chosen not to make many trivial and inexpensive fixes
to their designs. That's a shame, because for maybe a couple of hundred
dollars their cost they could be seriously competing with the top end
players.

The RCX design seems great to me, but Meade screwed up too much to make
it a viable choice for my upgrade. Basically, the same crappy mount as
the LX200s has. And no way to separate the OTA while retaining the
functionality of the focusing and collimating system. And of course, as
is always the case with Meade, QC issues.

I've been able to get a lot of good results with Meade equipment- on a
par with what I could get with much better stuff, but for much less
money (and a lot more work on my part). But I'm realistic about what it
is they make, and the 20"-24" (probably RC) I'm in the market for now
obviously isn't coming from Meade (and wouldn't, even if they made one).

>Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
>supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
>RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.

Just to be clear, in this case I'm not supporting Meade so much as
showing my disgust for those suing them. My next scope won't be from
Meade or RCOS (although RCOS had been my likely source). We'll see. I
might end up just buying the optics and doing the rest myself. No
problem with QC that way!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:11:05
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in news:J5Nah.10368
$yE6.2016@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
> supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
> RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.

Hmmmmmm, so what exactly is RCOS complaining about then? :-)

Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:21:53
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" < > wrote
> ......
> I suppose we could include OGS here as well since they also produce
> RC's.........

OGS? Since John Stiles is also a Meade dealer would he have to sue himself??
:)

Actually OGS stopped selling Meades years ago after a battle over a
defective refractor that took months to get fixed, much to the displeasure
of the OGS customer, a university in India.

> ......
> And furthermore I really doubt that this litigation has much to do with
> the smaller 10 and 12 inch varieties. It seems to be aimed at the much
> larger versions, 24 inch, and given their price point the damages could be
> large. And while Meade may not sell many to private individuals the sale
> of scopes to Universities and such is much more lucrative.

I don't know about RCOS, but I do know that less than a third of OGS sales
(in dollars, not scopes) are to individuals. The biggest OGS customers are
the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin, plus universities, museums, etc. From
recently helping with the purchase of an astro CCD camera by the State
University of New York I can tell you that the purchase decision is made by
the school business office, not the professors or using department. The
routine was: "Give us 3 quotes and we'll make the purchase and we don't care
which camera you think is best!" I can see how that could lead to Meade
sales of 14 to 20 inch scopes.

As for Meade's concern about sales: I think that it's more of a 'status
thing' if the Company 7 website can be believed. Their webpage on Meade
states that over 85% of Meade sales are generated by small cheap scopes sold
to Wal-Mart.

George N

Date: 03 Dec 2006 12:26:54
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"George Normandin" <georgepn@worldnet.att.net > wrote in
news:lprch.412739$QZ1.74127@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> As for Meade's concern about sales: I think that it's more of a
> 'status thing' if the Company 7 website can be believed. Their webpage
> on Meade states that over 85% of Meade sales are generated by small
> cheap scopes sold to Wal-Mart.

This is from their yearly report: advanced telescopes is roughly everything
above 7 inches and the Coronado stuff.

"Advanced astronomical telescopes collectively represented approximately
1%, 2%,and 3% of telescope units shipped and approximately 11%, 17% and 21%
of the Company�s net sales for its fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively."

Entry level scopes:

"Sales of entry-level telescopes comprised approximately 99%, 98% and 97%
of the Company�s telescope units shipped and approximately 34%, 35% and 36%
of the Company�s net sales for the fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively."

Binoculars

"represented approximately 23%, 21% and 24% of the Company�s net sales
during those fiscal years, respectively"

Riflescopes

"represented approximately 20%, 18% and 8% of the Company�s net sales for
its fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively"

Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:09:54
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
> >improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
> >Meade's BS Marketing Hype.
>
> No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
> "BS Marketing Hype".
>
> But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
> not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not. The suit has
> nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
> because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
> description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
> Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now. We'll see what happens in the
> courts.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Let's start with "flat imaging plane" when in point of fact it is
curved and S&T in an article about the RCX states that Meade is
preparing a field flattner

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:06:50
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

William R. Mattil wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> > <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
> >> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...
> >
> > But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
> > in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
> > makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
> > most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
> > about.
> >
>
> Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
> improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
> Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

No diffraction spikes.

Roland Christen chimed in with some other aspects in Yahoo's RCX400
group.

Like it or not, Meade did come up with neat stuff in the RCX400.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 19:37:40
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@fixthenumberscomcast.net > wrote:

>No, but you could call it a Lexus ;-)
>Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
>domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.

No, but it IS a specific optical design with well-defined parameters,
and those don't include a corrector plate or spherical mirror.

>Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
>what they're buying?

When I first heard about the RCX not quite being a Ritchey-Chretien,
I said, not quite a Ritchey-Chretien, then lets remove two 'e's and
a 'y'. That leaves us with "Rich Cretin".

Yes, there *are* people out there with lots of extra money to spend,
an interest in Astronomy, and not enough knowledge of optics to
understand the fine-print details.

>Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
>business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
>(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
>ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
>isn't very good at customer support.
>My $0.02
>
>
>Shawn

I don't think this lawsuit is at all frivolous. Meade DID market the
RCX as a Ritchey-Chretien ("based", if you read the fine print), and
is selling it at a price lower than any real R-C could go for. The
plaintiffs HAVE seen a precipitous drop in sales since the RCX came on
the market. The RCX is NOT a Ritchey-Chretien.

What the court has to decide is if this is cause and effect. Would
the plaintiffs also have seen a drop-off in sales if the RCX had been
put on the market under another name? I'm sure that very question
will come before the court.

Whichever way the case turns out, I think it's high time that scope
manufacturers stop poaching on the reputations of names such as
"Plossl" and "Ritchey-Chretien" to market products that aren't using
those designs.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-09 04:37 +0900, Paul Winalski wrote:

> plaintiffs HAVE seen a precipitous drop in sales since the RCX came on
> the market. The RCX is NOT a Ritchey-Chretien.

Does anybody in this thread honestly believe that a person or
organization would seriously order an RCOS _because_ it's an RC and then
jump ship to Meade _because_ their LX200R and RCX designs are marketed
as "Advanced RCs"? Honestly? I don't.

Has nobody else caught that the RCOS suit is claiming Meade advertises
their scopes as 'advanced "Ritchey-Chretien"' and 'Ritchey-Chretien'
designs? Look at that carefully now. There is a distinction in the
English language between 'Advanced Ritchey-Chretien', 'Ritchey-Chretien'
and 'advanced "Ritchey-Chretien"'. The terms do not mean the same thing.

I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
part. Much more credible is that the RCX performs well enough regardless
of its marketing hype so that a segment of purchasers is buying the
scope because it actually suits their needs and they don't need to spend
more money to reach that level of performance. RCOS is pissed about it.
MUCH more credible.

> What the court has to decide is if this is cause and effect. Would

Exactly.

> the plaintiffs also have seen a drop-off in sales if the RCX had been
> put on the market under another name? I'm sure that very question
> will come before the court.

I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.

> Whichever way the case turns out, I think it's high time that scope
> manufacturers stop poaching on the reputations of names such as
> "Plossl" and "Ritchey-Chretien" to market products that aren't using
> those designs.

Again, the question worth asking is whether these names create any
confusion. If somebody with a true 4-element Ploessl sells their EP for
20,000 Imperial Credits and faces competition from a different supplier
selling a 5-element Advanced Ploessl that performs a little less well
but only costs 8,000 Imperial Credits, it is fair to assume that Company
A's 4-element design might see a hit in sales. Given the knowledge known
to be common in Company A's clients, however, it is not reasonable to
believe that the sales hit Company A experienced was because of the word
"Ploessl" used in advertising by Company B. It is well (and reasonably)
expected that Company A's clients understand basic design and know how
many elements a true Ploessl design has and can easily recognize
modified/different designs due to the number of elements.

Another aspect here is whether anybody who _isn't_ a Meade basher
honestly believes that "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" means "Exactly
Ritchey-Chretien", because it assuredly doesn't to me. When I see the
words Advanced or Modified or Super, it's implicitly understood that the
design has been altered for one or more reasons. In that light, then, it
is reasonable to believe that no confusion could exist in the average
buyer of an RCOS telescope.

The key should be to prove damages by showing there was reasonable
confusion in an average RCOS client that resulted in some sales being
lost by RCOS as a direct result of that confusion.

Some might claim that I'm some sort of Meade supporter and RCOS basher
and that would hardly be the case. I own telescopes by neither company.
I like my Celestron because it has never let me down in having something
about which to whine. ;-)

The fact that I'm not a lawyer doesn't stop me from ruminating on it. ;)

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 08:37:58
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Trane Francks wrote:

> I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
> Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
> part.

There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
in Southern Ca.

Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
and a restaurant that had been around long before
the electronic giant ever came along had to change
their name.

Good news is that Meade will be way to busy to
sue Celestron again. I mean, we all know how much
they want to.......

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.3.9

Date: 09 Dec 2006 07:48:34
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> Trane Francks wrote:
>
>> I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
>> Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
>> part.
>
>
>
>
> There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
> in Southern Ca.
>
> Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
> and a restaurant that had been around long before
> the electronic giant ever came along had to change
> their name.
>
>
> Good news is that Meade will be way to busy to
> sue Celestron again. I mean, we all know how much
> they want to.......
>
>
>
>
Sears and Roebuck did the same thing to a Dry Cleaner in New York State
some years ago. Sears and Roebuck lost. Size doesn't matter. Besides the
Dry Cleaner still had a Sears working for it. The owner.

Dave N

Date: 09 Dec 2006 12:23:16
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:37:58 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
>in Southern Ca.
>
>Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
>and a restaurant that had been around long before
>the electronic giant ever came along had to change
>their name.

Do you have a reference? That sounds like an urban legend. If this
happened, the restaurant must have had some very bad legal help, or they
just caved without really fighting. Trademark law in the U.S. is quite
clear about duplicated names, and in order to infringe you need to be in
the same kind of business, or be obviously using the name in a way that
capitalizes on somebody else's name. That's why Lexus versus Lexis-Nexis
failed- the court held that there was no chance of someone confusing a
database service with a car.

It seems more likely to me that the restaurant simply accepted a nice
settlement in exchange for using a different name.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:02:44
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com >
wrote:

>I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
>Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
>part.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit alleges that this is precisely what
happened to them. This plaintiff alleges that they ordered a Meade
scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
a Ritchey-Chretien. RCOS and the other R-C manufacturers allege that
they then called up the retailers named as co-defendents and asked
them if the Meade scopes were Ritchey-Chretiens, and allegedly the
retailers said "yes". That is why they are named as co-defendents.

Just recently, one of the retailers, Anacortes Telescope and Bird,
has settled with the plaintiffs. ACT&B has stopped calling the
Meade scopes Ritchey-Chretiens, and in return an amended complaint
has been filed dropping them as a co-defendant. Allegedly the same
settlement offer has been made to the other retailers named in the
suit.

> Much more credible is that the RCX performs well enough regardless
>of its marketing hype so that a segment of purchasers is buying the
>scope because it actually suits their needs and they don't need to spend
>more money to reach that level of performance. RCOS is pissed about it.
>MUCH more credible.

The RCX unquestionably has lowered the price umbrella for flat field
astrographs within its size range. Meade is to be praised for a very
clever innovation that has made that possible.

>I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
>appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.

But they apparently do intersect. One of the plaintiffs is a customer
who claims to have purchased the Meade after being assured it's a
Ritchey-Cretien, only to find out that it isn't. An interesting
question that I'm sure will come up when the case is argued is, would
this customer have ponied up the extra bucks to buy a "real R-C" from
one of the plaintiff vendors?

>Another aspect here is whether anybody who _isn't_ a Meade basher
>honestly believes that "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" means "Exactly
>Ritchey-Chretien", because it assuredly doesn't to me. When I see the
>words Advanced or Modified or Super, it's implicitly understood that the
>design has been altered for one or more reasons. In that light, then, it
>is reasonable to believe that no confusion could exist in the average
>buyer of an RCOS telescope.

True, until one reaches the point where the advancement or
modification removes an essential element of the item. For example,
what if I come up with "Super Potato Chips" where the innovation is to
use something other than potatoes? Does the lack of a hyperbolic
mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.

Suppose I were a fast food chain and I decided I wanted to sell
grilled ground pork patties. Would I be allowed to call them "Super
Hamburgers"? I don't think so, because the term "hamburger" implies
ground beef.

>The key should be to prove damages by showing there was reasonable
>confusion in an average RCOS client that resulted in some sales being
>lost by RCOS as a direct result of that confusion.

Exactly.

>Some might claim that I'm some sort of Meade supporter and RCOS basher
>and that would hardly be the case. I own telescopes by neither company.
>I like my Celestron because it has never let me down in having something
>about which to whine. ;-)
>
>The fact that I'm not a lawyer doesn't stop me from ruminating on it. ;)

I'm not, either. Nor do I own a scope from either Meade or RCOS. But
I still contend that to use names such as "Plossl" or
"Ritchey-Chretien" for designs that differ by a key element from the
original is unethical and deceptive, even if it might be legal. You
don't see TeleVue calling their wide-angle eyepieces "Advanced
Erfles", even though that was one of the starting points for
coming up with their designs.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:28:10
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Paul Winalski <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com > wrote in
news:igron2tt18s6pj4a6ues8hqf5ck4ct3glt@4ax.com:

> scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
> Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
> a Ritchey-Chretien.

A-ma-zing. Dan Azari's insight leaves me speechless.

http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:08:23
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevennne wrote:
> Paul Winalski <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in
> news:igron2tt18s6pj4a6ues8hqf5ck4ct3glt@4ax.com:
>
>> scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
>> Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
>> a Ritchey-Chretien.
>
> A-ma-zing. Dan Azari's insight leaves me speechless.
>
> http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

Pierre,

What is it that makes a software person a "great" judge of an optical
system ? Or more or less prone to advertising BS ? And really does it
matter ? An individual contacted a telescope dealer and was persuaded to
purchase a Meade in lieu of a *real* Ritchey. This could have been
anybody and it has likely happened before from other salespeople at
other retailers as well. If you take the time to read the RCOS position
you will find that they aren't after any money at all. They want the
false advertising stopped. Which it would be if Meade had any character.
But after the success from their last suit against Celestron they are
probably feeling a bit full of themselves <g >

I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
his position is relevant. It would probably make a better defense to
simply deny that the employee ever suggested the Meade.

Bill

Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:45:37
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in news:binfh.11128
$wc5.6859@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

>> http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

> I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
> his position is relevant.

You've been wrong before on this very topic ;-)

http://lnk.nu/groups.google.be/cah

But I guess this is a matter of perception. Anyway, leaving aside what the
courts will think of the issue the impression it leaves me is that they
could not find a genuine Meade customer unhappy enough about his RCX to sue
along and that is why they had to ask one of their employees / contractors
/ associates to pose as one.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:42:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevennne wrote:
> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:binfh.11128
> $wc5.6859@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>> I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
>> his position is relevant.
>
> You've been wrong before on this very topic ;-)
>
> http://lnk.nu/groups.google.be/cah

Not proven at all. You are not understanding what is actually happening
here. <g >

>
> But I guess this is a matter of perception.

Indeed it is.

> Anyway, leaving aside what the
> courts will think of the issue the impression it leaves me is that they
> could not find a genuine Meade customer unhappy enough about his RCX to sue
> along and that is why they had to ask one of their employees / contractors
> / associates to pose as one.

Ok - I'll type this slowly so that perhaps you'll get it. This suit
isn't about anyone being "unhappy" with the Meade RCX or 200R. This suit
is about the false claims made by the plantifs in regards to the optics.
Personally I think Meade is pure crap .... but that is also not relevant
here. What is relevant is that claims have been made that certain
dealers are touting the phoney Ritchey as having real Ritchey optics and
anyone with half a functioning brain cell would admit that it is *not* a
Ritchey. I am not surprised that Meade is being sued over this. But
after reviewing what RCOS was really wanting I had hoped that Meade
would amend their advertising and make it go away. Because it is the
right thing to do. But the arrogance displayed by Meade with this is
appalling and I find it curious that you refuse to acknowledge this.

Now .... lets discuss the actual Meade RCX .... you mention that
apparently no one is unhappy with their RCX ?!?!? You are aware that
they (Meade) have had a high percentage of failures with this design ?
Why do you think that Meade came out with the LX200R ? and went back to
the moving primary mirror system ?

And to cap it all off.... I certainly don't recall seeing a number of
posts by you supporting poor old Celestron when they were being sued and
then crying foul when Meade persisted and ultimately won. And yet you
still choose to patronize a company that behaves in such a manner. One
can only conclude that you are currently on the waiting list for an RCOS
scope <g >

A Hubble for your backyard ?!?!? Indeed ....

Bill

>
>
>

Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:33:48
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:Bdzfh.11264$wc5.2742@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Ok - I'll type this slowly so that perhaps you'll get it. This suit

Apparently, I did get some things you, by your own admission, missed...
simply be reading the lawsuit. It ain't rocket science.

No need to get into personal attacks.

> Because it is the right thing to do. But the arrogance displayed by
> Meade with this is appalling and I find it curious that you refuse to
> acknowledge this.

As it has been pointed many times already, those mis-appropriations happen
all the time in the astronomy equipment world. Plossl, super apos, apos who
aren't apos, monocentrics, etc... There are things that are genuinely
misleading for the uninformed customers: the pretty pictures an almost all
low end scope boxes for example.

> Now .... lets discuss the actual Meade RCX .... you mention that
> apparently no one is unhappy with their RCX ?!?!?

I did not say that. What I said is that apparently RCOS couldn't find
someone unhappy enough to sue along. That is probably why they asked one of
their employee/contractor/associate to play the role of the dumb shopper.

> And to cap it all off.... I certainly don't recall seeing a number of
> posts by you supporting poor old Celestron when they were being sued

Youn recall wrongly. Google is your friend.

> you still choose to patronize a company that behaves in such a manner.

I don't - please check the thread if you don't remember which instruments I
own.

> One can only conclude that you are currently on the waiting list for
> an RCOS scope <g>

I don't support that type of company, sorry (exactly for the same reason I
haven't bought from Meade after the initial ETX-125).

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:44:51
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-11 06:02 +0900, Paul Winalski wrote:

Sorry for the very late reply. I've been abroad on business.

> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com>
> wrote:

>>I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
>>appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.
>
> But they apparently do intersect. One of the plaintiffs is a customer
> who claims to have purchased the Meade after being assured it's a
> Ritchey-Cretien, only to find out that it isn't. An interesting

That plaintiff, Dan Azari, is an RCOS technical programmer, isn't he?
It's not reasonable to expect Azari was confused by Meade's advertising.
It is, however, reasonable to expect that Azari and RCOS are in cahoots
with each other in the execution of this legal maneuvering.

> question that I'm sure will come up when the case is argued is, would
> this customer have ponied up the extra bucks to buy a "real R-C" from
> one of the plaintiff vendors?

Considering that our phantom shopper has a history with RCOS hardware
already, I think it's fair to speculate that he's already ponied up
those extra bucks. Whether he would have purchased one from one of the
named defendants is a different story. Dealing direct seems more likely.

> use something other than potatoes? Does the lack of a hyperbolic
> mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
> I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.

It probably will be, but then you have to consider that the design of
the optical system is not patented or copyrighted. Moreover, Meade has
been careful to advertise it as an "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien". The
capitals in all words make it fully a proper name, and therefore it
could even be claimed (albeit as a technicality) that it need not be
anything at all like an RC.

> Suppose I were a fast food chain and I decided I wanted to sell
> grilled ground pork patties. Would I be allowed to call them "Super
> Hamburgers"? I don't think so, because the term "hamburger" implies
> ground beef.

Actually, it doesn't imply ground beef by name, it only does by
historical representation, and THAT itself sets a potential precedent
for Meade. Amusingly, had Meade called their optical system an MLB
(Meade Light Burglar), nobody would be moaning about the fact that the
optical system isn't actually stealing light.

> It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

Indeed.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 03:19:38
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Trane Francks" < > wrote
...

>> ......Does the lack of a hyperbolic
>> mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
>> I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.
>
> It probably will be, but then you have to consider that the design of the
> optical system is not patented or copyrighted. Moreover, Meade has been
> careful to advertise it as an "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien". The capitals in
> all words make it fully a proper name, and therefore it could even be
> claimed (albeit as a technicality) that it need not be anything at all
> like an RC.
> ........

Maybe I should sue Star Instruments and OGS for selling me a scope with
sub-standard "Ritchey-Chretien" optics when I could have gotten the far more
"Advanced" Meade optics for much less...... I must have been duped! Where's
my lawyer??! :)

BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star
Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no indication on
their new website that the original owner has anything to do with the (new?)
company any longer. I bought an OGS RC partly based on the owner's
reputation for figuring these optics, and now it looks like he's gone.
Perhaps the Star Instruments RC mirror sets (OGS & RCOS scopes) are no
longer what they use to be? I'd rather have an excellent F/5 Newt & coma
corrector lens than a mediocre "RC" or "Advanced RC".

George N

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:08:56
From: Opera Bannana
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

oh - is that what the guy is talking about ? that nonsense again -

muddy@despammed.com wrote:

> I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
> advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
> innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
> them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
> paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?

Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:53:23
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Decimalising RA and Dec Values

dylan wrote:
> Are you sure on this ?
> 1 deg = 60 arcminutes
> 1/15 deg = 1 arcminute
> surely...
> 1 deg = 60 arcminutes
> 1/60 deg = 1 arcminute ?

My apologies. Your're right. To correct, the declination list should
have read:

In declination, the values are:

360 deg = 360 degrees
1 deg = 1 deg
1 deg = 60 arcminutes
1/60 deg = 1 arcminute
1 arcminute = 60 arcseconds
1/60 deg = 60 arcseconds
1 / ( 60 * 60 ) = 1 arcsecond
1 / (3600) = 1 arcsecond
0.000278 deg = 1 arcsecond

- Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 08:10:54
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
> adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
> RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
> rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.
>

Hi Chris:

In this case, I'd have say "no," as the people who know something about
optics (NOT ME ;-))...tell me there's no "simulating" to it. This
design literally has nothing to do with the RC concept. I'm even told
that the secondary is not hyperbolic, as we initially heard, but
parabolic.

What gripes me about the lawsuit, however? These goobs are also suing
Meade DEALERS, including some who never advertised the scope as an
"Advance Richey Chretien."

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 26 Nov 2006 07:03:38
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> gobbletwo wrote:

>
>
> It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> about, and didn't say what was being advertised.

You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 27 Nov 2006 01:51:34
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

RMOLLISE wrote:
> allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
>
>>gobbletwo wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
>>about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
>
>
> You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
> name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
>
Gobbletwo admits to his fetishes, but Rod, " rapier-like prose" has only
enlarged my head: Rebel Yell may be my downfall. ;-)

73,de jon
n2b?? :-)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
> >get rid of CI through unrthical means either...
>
> Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> (and I think its arguable)
>

Hi:

Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
Ritchey Chretiens. That said, as I indicated in my blog entry on the
subject for October 11 (<http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/ >), I still
think it's a pretty silly lawsuit. OTOH, it's tough not to think "what
goes 'round comes 'round" after the equally foolish and destructive (to
both companies) "north and level patent war." "Live by the sword, die
by the sword" also springs to mind. ;-)

Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:12:13
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
>Ritchey Chretiens...
>
>Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
>SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
>to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)

I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
"modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).

Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:36:27
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:
> I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> well as the advertisement next to it.
>
> Comments are solicited. ;-)

It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
about, and didn't say what was being advertised.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:07:44
From: Opera Bannana
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:

> I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> well as the advertisement next to it.
>
> Comments are solicited. ;-)
>
> jon

I agree! Any editorial and advertisement which are:

BLANK SPACE

must contort the aphrodesiac of the common deer Moon!
Good grief.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 21:29:28
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

> All those companies that sell refractors with two-element objective
> lenses, and call them "apochromats"! Everyone knows that an apochromat
> is a lens that has three elements, with three kinds of glass, so that
> it can bring three different colors to the same focus.

Three different colors CAN be brought into focus using only two lenses.
Try BK7 and FPL53 for example. With 3 lenses you can make an objective
that will bring FIVE colors to the same focus if you really try hard.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:07:24
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

canopus56 wrote:
> Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX,

Note that recent advertisements show that Meade is now offering its
advanced optical design on less expensive models as well.

John Savard

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:05:32
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> If you have to go after
> the competition via legal means, you are doing something
> terribly wrong.

Not necessarily.

Maybe *they're* doing something terribly wrong.

Otherwise, we wouldn't need to even _have_ courts, or police, for that
matter.

In general, though, it is true that a successful company with a popular
product doesn't need to waste too much time on litigation - but even in
that case, it's worthwhile to defend one's patents and trademarks, else
one might be nibbled away around the edges.

Where would Microsoft be, if nothing was ever done about software
piracy?

John Savard

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:00:15
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Shawn wrote:
> Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
> domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.

> Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
> what they're buying?

> Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
> business to me.

I can very well understand that a company in the business of selling
*real* Ritchey-Chretien telescopes might well consider the Meade RCX
telescope unfair competition, given that it is sold as a
Ritchey-Chretien telescope, but has a spherical primary.

Even before the RCX, though, Meade's Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes
departed from classical Schmidt-Cassegrain design for improved optical
performance. And the RCX does provide high optical performance, and its
design was at least inspired by the Ritchey-Chretien telescope.

Thus, while I find the lawsuit understandable, there are grounds to
argue that what Meade is doing is perfectly legitimate as well.

Of course, if that lawsuit *is* successful, guess who the next target
will be?

All those companies that sell refractors with two-element objective
lenses, and call them "apochromats"! Everyone knows that an apochromat
is a lens that has three elements, with three kinds of glass, so that
it can bring three different colors to the same focus.

Of course, an achromatic lens made out of exotic and expensive glass
types can have less dispersion than one made out of cheap, ordinary
glass - just as an apochromatic lens made from such materials can
out-do an apochromat made from more common glasses. But this doesn't
change the basic type of lens.

What if some company making three-element apochromats sued all those
companies making "ED Apochromats" with two-element lenses?

To quote Rush Limbaugh, "words mean things". A little more truth in
advertising would not be a bad thing.

John Savard

Date: 27 Nov 2006 14:11:16
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1164589215.427077.208450@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Shawn wrote:
> I can very well understand that a company in the business of selling
> *real* Ritchey-Chretien telescopes might well consider the Meade RCX
> telescope unfair competition, given that it is sold as a
> Ritchey-Chretien telescope, but has a spherical primary.

That's really the nut of the matter. The SCT market is flooded with
competitors. So, just rename your high-performance SCT as an RC and
differentiate your product from the rest of the pack. I'm also not
concerned about the technical knowledge of buyers who can afford a $4K-$40K
scope.

But it's symptomatic of the adverstising in the telescope industry as a
whole, e.g. - the 70mm Christmas refractor claiming "views to 625x" with a
full-color Hubble picture of the North American nebula on the outside of the
box as blow-up from the eyepiece.

There's fair competition, there's advertising puffing, and then there's
unfair advertising.

- Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:20:52
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> >Ritchey Chretiens...
> >
> >Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> >SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> >to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
>
> I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
> "modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
> example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
> versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).
>

A SCT does have a corrector plate and for as many ways you can cook it
it will still correct for spherical aberration for both or one mirror.
This is to say that the main feature of the design and indeed the
trademarl of the design itself is in having that specific feature.
Besides, there aren't many ways you can cook a SCT. In fact if
Celestron and Meade (copying the original Celestron design) had an
aspherical secondary in their SCTs all the way from the start then RCX
business wouldn't have any sense.

> Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
> adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
> RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
> rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.
>

There is no simulation possible, in fact the field curvature results
are radically different as it is the spherochromatism results. Probably
it can be shown theoretically that no simulation is indeed possible,
There is little defensible in the sleazy appropriation of the Ritchey
Cretien name by Meade for purely marketing purposes, and I, for one,
just hope they (Meade) get their just punishment for what the RCX
marketing is really, unfair trading.

Andrea T.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:37:42
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

And what the marketing "experts' did not realize is that only advanced
or knowledgeable astronomers know what a Ritchey Chretien telescope is,
and the only people that they could dupe is a novice astronomer who
does not even know who George Willis Ritchey was.

Meade made a mistake on this one.

Matthew Ota

RMOLLISE wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
> > >get rid of CI through unrthical means either...
> >
> > Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> > unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> > I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> > (and I think its arguable)
> >
>
>
> Hi:
>
> Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> Ritchey Chretiens. That said, as I indicated in my blog entry on the
> subject for October 11 (<http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/>), I still
> think it's a pretty silly lawsuit. OTOH, it's tough not to think "what
> goes 'round comes 'round" after the equally foolish and destructive (to
> both companies) "north and level patent war." "Live by the sword, die
> by the sword" also springs to mind. ;-)
>
> Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>

Date: 27 Nov 2006 04:50:02
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> > allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>gobbletwo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> >>about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
> >
> >
> > You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
> > name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)
> >
> > Peace,
> > Rod Mollise
> > Author of:
> > Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> > and
> > The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> > <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
> >
> Gobbletwo admits to his fetishes, but Rod, " rapier-like prose" has only
> enlarged my head: Rebel Yell may be my downfall. ;-)
>
>

BUT...as they say..."Death, where is thy sting!"

:-)

Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:56:37
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
> Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
> news:ni5km2lg64h2jj2bid82gljglpqlhecrfh@4ax.com:
>
> > "enhanced". Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact,
> > made available, and the RCX design appears to have better optical
> > performance in many respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read
>
> An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
> beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade design
> really works well.
> [...]

That is true, as Roland Christen of Astro-Physics would concur.

Though I don't expect Astro-Physics to become a Meade dealer and sell
LX200R and RCX400 scopes alongside A-P's refractors and mounts (though
A-P will be selling a lot of optical accessories for the LX200R and
RCX400,
see below), Roland hangs-out in the Yahoo "RCX400" group, had written
some
good things about the optical design, and just wrote this there last
Friday:

The RCX is good Message #9232 of 9255 Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:30 pm
"uncarollo2" <chris1011@... >

I have had a chance now to use a 10" F10 version of the famed
Meade "RC" scopes, the 10" LX200R. I was skeptical that it would
perform on a par with any of the more advanced RC types, so I did not
expect really good results from it. In any case, I made a special
adapter to allow me to use the AP 0.75x telecompressor on the back of
the scope, and mounted an SBIG ST10XE and an STL11k camera. The
ST10XE was not a good match for this scope. The star sizes were
consistently on the order of 10 - 12 pixels FWHM, and the field size
was small, so that the image looked relatively poor when adjusted to
my monitor size. Basically, the image was being way oversampled and
was not taking advantage of the full field size of this scope.

The STL11K camera with its 9 micron pixels was a much better match,
especially when I imaged at 2x2 binning. The field size with the .75x
compressor is close to 1 degree and even at 100% size, the final
image is almost twice as large as my monitor with excellent
sharpness.

I spent one night shooting M33 and posted the result in the files
section.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RCX400/files/Astrophotos%20with%20RCX/

under M33 folder. I compared this image to several posted by classic
RC users, and I have to admit, it stacks up quite well, even when
compared to those taken with fairly large RCs. I shot through high
thin clouds, so my signal to noise is not what it could be. Also, my
observatory is located next to the Astro-Physics factory in a light
polluted area with several suburban shopping centers and car
dealerships just down the road. A better test would be to take the
scope out to a dark sky site (if I ever get the time).

I had the scope mounted on the new Astro-Physics Mach 1 mounting, and
I posted another image showing a screen shot of the MaximDL tracking
graph during one of the exposures. Each pixel of the STL11k guide
chip is approximately 0.75 arc sec at the focal length I was using,
so you can see that this little mount really tracks like a champ -
less than 1 arc sec rms.

One other note: Although the telecompressor would theoretically
provide a reduction to F7.5, the actual reduction with the 10" is
closer to F8.5. The reason for that is that the compressor requires
more back focus than what you need at F10. Moving the mirror forward
to get this backfocus results in the scope producing between F11 and
F12, thus there is a kind of tug of war going on between compressor
and moving mirror. In any case, the resultant resolution is
maintained, and actually all the compressed images show slightly
better resolution than the F10 images that I took. (By the way, AP
will be offering an adapter system to allow 2.7" accessories to be
attached on the back of all Meade RCX and LXR scopes).

Vignetting is evident both at F10 and F8.5, but not so bad that it
cannot be fully taken care of with flat fielding. Star images without
the compressor are quite good to the corners. With the compressor the
stars are oval at the extremes. Even so, the stars over the same
field size are pretty much round either way. It's just that the field
is larger with the compressor, and more stars are shown. Cropping the
images slightly results in a very nice field with minimal vignetting
and astigmatism in the corners. Resolution is pretty much identical
either way, but the signal level is significantly higher, which means
shorter exposure for the same density.

Critique of the 10" LX200R: In my professional opinion, there are a
couple of things about this scope that are a negative, and if Meade
changed the design somewhat, they would have a first class system,
kind of unbeatable at the price, even if they raised the price a bit
for the upgrade.

1) the main complaint is that the focuser is so coarse that it is
very difficult to get perfect focus. A 10:1 mechanism would be a nice
addition, or simply using a finer thread on the focuser screw (I may
modify mine with a fine thread).

2) the image shift is quite bad, which prevents going back and forth
during focusing. One must approach from one direction slowly. Adding
a Crayford focuser would solve this, but that eats up more back
focus, and causes the focal ratio to increase yet again.

3) the aluminum tube results in significant focus shift during
temperature changes, and coupled with the poor focuser system it is
hard to take long exposures. The obvious solution is carbon fiber.

4) although the secondary obstruction is quite large, especially on
the main mirror, the rear opening of the scope is quite small. This
prevents placing telecompressor optics closer up the light path. As a
result, there is a limit to the amount of compression that can be
achieved with a high quality telecompressor, especially one that
covers a large field of the STL cameras. Even at F10, the opening is
too small to fully cover the field. I don't know what the situation
is for the 12" and larger scopes, but the 10" has a rear aperture of
only 50mm, whereas the mirror central obstruction is over 90mm in
diameter.

If anyone is interested, I can post a picture of my 10"LX200R - Mach1
setup. Again, I think for the money this is quite a respectable scope
with some real possibilities for high quality astro images.

Rolando

Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:45:50
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> >
> > You anti-Meade people are pathetic.
>
>
>
> But I guess it's OK to you if Meade sues
> someone right ??
>
>
>
>
>
> AM

The only time it's ok is when someone has clearly taken something
YOU'VE designed, without your consent and used it to make money. So
unless RC Optical Systems was around in 1910.....

http://www.resonancepub.com/optical.htm
The Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Telescope was developed jointly by American
optician George Willis Ritchey and French optical designer Henri
Chr=E9tien in the early 1910's.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:14:38
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

atasselli@hotmail.com wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> > >Ritchey Chretiens...
> > >
> > >Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> > >SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> > >to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
> >
> > I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
> > "modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
> > example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
> > versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).
> >
>
> A SCT does have a corrector plate and for as many ways you can cook it
> it will still correct for spherical aberration for both or one mirror.
> This is to say that the main feature of the design and indeed the
> trademarl of the design itself is in having that specific feature.
> Besides, there aren't many ways you can cook a SCT. In fact if
> Celestron and Meade (copying the original Celestron design) had an
> aspherical secondary in their SCTs all the way from the start then RCX
> business wouldn't have any sense.
>
>
> > Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
> > adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
> > RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
> > rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.
> >
>
> There is no simulation possible, in fact the field curvature results
> are radically different as it is the spherochromatism results. Probably
> it can be shown theoretically that no simulation is indeed possible,
> There is little defensible in the sleazy appropriation of the Ritchey
> Cretien name by Meade for purely marketing purposes, and I, for one,
> just hope they (Meade) get their just punishment for what the RCX
> marketing is really, unfair trading.
>
> Andrea T.

You anti-Meade people are pathetic. You are opening the floodgates for
a slew of potential lawsuits. What if I decide that only true apos can
use that term sue everyone marketing an refractor using "apo" in
their ads? Or, I sue a company for using a subdiameter corrector
because they used the term, Maksutov?
Stop trying to protect the unwashed, they don't f----- BUY these things.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:17:08
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Rich wrote:

>
> You anti-Meade people are pathetic.

But I guess it's OK to you if Meade sues
someone right ??

AM

Date: 27 Nov 2006 22:50:50
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

William R. Mattil wrote:
> [...]
> I am not an attorney but I have glanced through it and spoken with two
> of the complainants and understand their position.

Wouldn't you agree it's odd RCOS moves into their new office buildings
the same month they sue Meade:

<http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/comprop.html >

Out to make a quick buck at Meade's expense? Who knows?

There are so many flaws and legal errors in the filing by the country
lawyer
I'd be surprised if this even gets to court -- it's a shoddy and
poorly-prepared
suit.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:47:42
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-11-28 15:50 +0900, thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

> Wouldn't you agree it's odd RCOS moves into their new office buildings
> the same month they sue Meade:

Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

> <http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/comprop.html>
>
> Out to make a quick buck at Meade's expense? Who knows?

How 'bout we toss in another question regarding Dan Azari? In the suit,
didn't he supposedly get stung on purchasing an R-C design by getting a
Meade and not knowing what it was? Funny, then, that Dan Azari wrote the
RCOS Pro Series Mount communication protocol for XmTel 3.1 along with
the support of RC Optical Systems.

<http://www.astro.louisville.edu/moore/software/xmtel/xmtel-3.1/rcos/README.rcos >

Is it me or does the suit seem to misrepresent the facts? (Yes, I've
read it.)

> There are so many flaws and legal errors in the filing by the country
> lawyer
> I'd be surprised if this even gets to court -- it's a shoddy and
> poorly-prepared
> suit.

I have a feeling that the intentions behind the suit are less than
honourable.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:42:26
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Trane Francks <trane@gol.com > wrote in news:ekgtbh$v1h$1@nnrp.gol.com:

> Is it me or does the suit seem to misrepresent the facts? (Yes, I've
> read it.)

You've said it: I can't agree more. This is a bogus phantom shopper if
there ever was one. It is plainly and painfully obvious to anyone actually
reading the lawsuit. He is a bad comedian and plays the dumb customer's
role very poorly.

If the judge happens to be an amateur astronomer... ;)

Date: 01 Dec 2006 16:41:08
From: Ed T
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Trane Francks" <trane@gol.com > wrote in message
>
> I have a feeling that the intentions behind the suit are less than
> honourable.
>

In my view, RCOS and Star Instruments showed their true colors by naming not
just Meade but it's dealers as well. Retailers ALWAYS parrot the marketing
script supplied by the manufacturer. These jerks are trying to get at Meade
by inflicting pain on third parties in it's distribution chain, an approach
which I find disgusting.

Ed T.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 21:38:20
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-02 01:41 +0900, Ed T wrote:

> In my view, RCOS and Star Instruments showed their true colors by naming not
> just Meade but it's dealers as well. Retailers ALWAYS parrot the marketing

Yes, that's a sad and unfortunate truth.

> script supplied by the manufacturer. These jerks are trying to get at Meade
> by inflicting pain on third parties in it's distribution chain, an approach
> which I find disgusting.

I just don't understand how they intend to benefit from suing dealers.
Bad karma there, man!

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:18:31
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:38:20 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com >
wrote:

>On 2006-12-02 01:41 +0900, Ed T wrote:
>
>> In my view, RCOS and Star Instruments showed their true colors by naming not
>> just Meade but it's dealers as well. Retailers ALWAYS parrot the marketing
>
>Yes, that's a sad and unfortunate truth.
>
>> script supplied by the manufacturer. These jerks are trying to get at Meade
>> by inflicting pain on third parties in it's distribution chain, an approach
>> which I find disgusting.
>
>I just don't understand how they intend to benefit from suing dealers.
>Bad karma there, man!

The dealers also are alleged to be committing the civil wrong. The
lawyers will go after as many as they can with as many legal theories
they can muster. They'll just have to fight it out in court. I
think RCOS is wasting its money on legal fees myself.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:39:45
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William Hamblen" < > wrote
>>
>>I just don't understand how they intend to benefit from suing dealers.
>>Bad karma there, man!
>
> The dealers also are alleged to be committing the civil wrong. The
> lawyers will go after as many as they can with as many legal theories
> they can muster. They'll just have to fight it out in court. I
> think RCOS is wasting its money on legal fees myself.

If they're suing all Meade dealers they may have some real resistance.
According to the "Company 7" website over 80% of Meade sales are to
Wal-Mart. Picking a fight with Meade is one thing, picking a fight with the
"Wal-Martians" is quite another.

Perhaps the idea is that a lawsuit against Meade, along with all of Meade's
other problems (multi-million $$ loss, back-dated stock options fraud
investigation) will be enough to scare off schools, and other big
institutional buyers. With the drop in Meade stock and their other legal
problems this suit could give the impression that Meade might not survive.

George N

Date: 03 Dec 2006 22:44:46
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

George Normandin wrote:
> "William Hamblen" <> wrote
>
>>>I just don't understand how they intend to benefit from suing dealers.
>>>Bad karma there, man!
>>
>>The dealers also are alleged to be committing the civil wrong. The
>>lawyers will go after as many as they can with as many legal theories
>>they can muster. They'll just have to fight it out in court. I
>>think RCOS is wasting its money on legal fees myself.
>
>
>
> If they're suing all Meade dealers they may have some real resistance.
> According to the "Company 7" website over 80% of Meade sales are to
> Wal-Mart. Picking a fight with Meade is one thing, picking a fight with the
> "Wal-Martians" is quite another.
>
> Perhaps the idea is that a lawsuit against Meade, along with all of Meade's
> other problems (multi-million $$ loss, back-dated stock options fraud
> investigation) will be enough to scare off schools, and other big
> institutional buyers. With the drop in Meade stock and their other legal
> problems this suit could give the impression that Meade might not survive.
>
> George N
>
>
Walmart is not a Respondent in the action, afaik. It has been
noted,though, that Microsoft was in line to become dealer in bogus RC
telescopes. Deep pockets:ask Ballmer... ;-)

jon

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:29:12
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Trane Francks wrote:

> I just don't understand how they intend to benefit from suing dealers.
> Bad karma there, man!
>
> trane

Because sadly we have (in USA) fostered this type
of mentality.

I mean... when you can get 15 mil for spilling
hot coffee on YOURSELF... sheesh... this isn't that
much of a stretch at all.

I actually have had a local business owner threaten
to sue me over a post I made on another newsgroup
over six years ago ! I couldn't believe it.....
(obviously it just went away)

AM

Date: 30 Nov 2006 15:56:32
From: Dale
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Hello

First off, RCOS doesn't even make Ritchey-Chretien optics. They buy them
from Star-Instruments, they make parts and construct a telescope around the
glass. You should go to Star Instruments for their very informative
comparison and opinion.
http://www.star-instruments.com/comparisions.html

The Advanced RC is pretty obviously not an RC.

If you have followed Meades track record since they enter the business by
copying the C-8 you should know they have as many lawyers as technicians and
I am sure they weighed this new insult to the public thoroughly before they
marketed it.

I think S&T is in a pretty tight spot considering all the revenue they get
from Meade. I was wondering if the placement of the editorial with a full
page Meade ad facing it was a subliminal plea for mercy from the readers.

Dale Ireland

Date: 01 Dec 2006 01:01:51
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Dale wrote:

> I think S&T is in a pretty tight spot considering all the revenue they get
> from Meade. I was wondering if the placement of the editorial with a full
> page Meade ad facing it was a subliminal plea for mercy from the readers.

Dale,

Did you notice that Fienberg pretty much kissed Meades ass in the
"editorial" ? I really like where he explained that adding the corrector
makes the spherical primary look like a hyperboloid. Which in his
incredibly naive view (or a concentrated effort not to piss of S&T's
biggest advertiser) makes it an RC and not an SCT. Which makes me wonder
what the corrector does in an SCT ? Oh yeah ... makes the spherical
mirror look hyperboloid. <roflmao >

Then he compounds the errors by insinuating that the "good deed" that
Meade performed by making a low cost system available resulted in Meade
being punished by the lawsuit. Freaking hysterical.

Sky and Telescope you need a reality check and you need to quit being a
sycophant of Meade.

Bill

Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:51:35
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" < > wrote

> ............ Which makes me wonder what the corrector does in an SCT ? Oh
> yeah ... makes the spherical mirror look hyperboloid. <roflmao>

Bill,

I thought that the SCT corrector was there to collect dew and absorb or
scatter 7% of the incoming light! :)

George N
OGS 10" RC Cass/MI-250
Obsession 20"
home made 6" & 8" Newts
and no SCT's

Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:45:55
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

George Normandin wrote:
> "William R. Mattil" <> wrote
>
>> ............ Which makes me wonder what the corrector does in an SCT ? Oh
>> yeah ... makes the spherical mirror look hyperboloid. <roflmao>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I thought that the SCT corrector was there to collect dew and absorb or
> scatter 7% of the incoming light! :)
>
> George N
> OGS 10" RC Cass/MI-250
> Obsession 20"
> home made 6" & 8" Newts
> and no SCT's
>
>

Hi George,

A good point indeed ! <g >

Regards

Bill

PS: Meade free since 2001

Date: 03 Dec 2006 02:56:03
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Dale" < > wrote
>
>....... I think S&T is in a pretty tight spot.........

Meade's in a pretty tight spot too when you consider that S&T also reported
that they took a several million $$ loss last year, a significant part of
their gross income.

See:
http://www.quote.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:MEAD&story=200612011428_RTT_12012006_0886

What S&T didn't mention is that Meade restructured recently removing a VP or
two and laying off people in both their US and Mexico facilities. Finally,
there's that 'other' class action law suite against Meade alleging that the
stock options of the top guys were back-dated, which if true, is a crime.

Google: "Meade and stock options".

George N

Date: 03 Dec 2006 23:10:08
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Dale wrote:
> Hello
>
> First off, RCOS doesn't even make Ritchey-Chretien optics. They buy them
> from Star-Instruments, they make parts and construct a telescope around the
> glass. You should go to Star Instruments for their very informative
> comparison and opinion.
> http://www.star-instruments.com/comparisions.html
>
> The Advanced RC is pretty obviously not an RC.
>
> If you have followed Meades track record since they enter the business by
> copying the C-8 you should know they have as many lawyers as technicians and
> I am sure they weighed this new insult to the public thoroughly before they
> marketed it.
>
> I think S&T is in a pretty tight spot considering all the revenue they get
> from Meade. I was wondering if the placement of the editorial with a full
> page Meade ad facing it was a subliminal plea for mercy from the readers.
>
> Dale Ireland
>
>
I believe Dale might be "on to something." ;-)

Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:52:12
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

canopus56 wrote:
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:1164589215.427077.208450@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Shawn wrote:
> > I can very well understand that a company in the business of selling
> > *real* Ritchey-Chretien telescopes might well consider the Meade RCX
> > telescope unfair competition, given that it is sold as a
> > Ritchey-Chretien telescope, but has a spherical primary.
>
> That's really the nut of the matter. The SCT market is flooded with
> competitors. So, just rename your high-performance SCT as an RC and
> differentiate your product from the rest of the pack. I'm also not
> concerned about the technical knowledge of buyers who can afford a $4K-$40K
> scope.
>
> But it's symptomatic of the adverstising in the telescope industry as a
> whole, e.g. - the 70mm Christmas refractor claiming "views to 625x" with a
> full-color Hubble picture of the North American nebula on the outside of the
> box as blow-up from the eyepiece.
>
> There's fair competition, there's advertising puffing, and then there's
> unfair advertising.
>
> - Canopus56

Maybe RCOS can do what Questar did when sales fell, claim that their
3.5" scopes showed more deepsky detail than 8" SCTs...

Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:53:46
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

canopus56 wrote:
> That's really the nut of the matter. The SCT market is flooded with
> competitors. So, just rename your high-performance SCT as an RC and
> differentiate your product from the rest of the pack. I'm also not
> concerned about the technical knowledge of buyers who can afford a $4K-$40K
> scope.

Ah, so the plaintiff cannot prove an injury - the injured parties are
the makers of other Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes, who are free to come
up with their own slightly modified optical designs for which they can
provide inflated designations!

Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and, thus, Meade has
one other thing on its side. The spot diagrams seem to say that the RCX
design genuinely does bring images to a far sharper focus than a
conventional Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. If it is comparable in image
quality to a "real" Ritchey-Chretien, then a court will be hard put to
base a decision on a philosophical point concerning minutiae of such a
technical field as optical design.

John Savard

Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:28:02
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> canopus56 wrote:
> Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and, thus, Meade has
> one other thing on its side. The spot diagrams seem to say that the RCX
> design genuinely does bring images to a far sharper focus than a
> conventional Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. If it is comparable in image
> quality to a "real" Ritchey-Chretien, then a court will be hard put to
> base a decision on a philosophical point concerning minutiae of such a
> technical field as optical design.

IIRC, didn't we already consider that that those spot diagrams were
for d light only?

Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:24:36
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Rich wrote:
> AM wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You anti-Meade people are pathetic.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I guess it's OK to you if Meade sues
> > someone right ??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > AM
>
> The only time it's ok is when someone has clearly taken something
> YOU'VE designed, without your consent and used it to make money. So
> unless RC Optical Systems was around in 1910.....
>
> http://www.resonancepub.com/optical.htm
> The Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Telescope was developed jointly by American
> optician George Willis Ritchey and French optical designer Henri
> Chr=E9tien in the early 1910's.

I suggest you consider Meade's attempts with Televue. From the Company
7 web site a bit of Televue and Meade history:

"By 1985 TeleVue sales of eyepieces among the serious astronomical
community continued to grow in no small part due to word of mouth,
while other telescope distributors continued to offer traditional
comparatively simpler designs. One of the first prominently ugly
episodes in the business side of amateur astronomy happened when Meade
Instruments (a large telescope manufacturer and distributor) took the
TeleVue concepts and designs which were available at the U.S. Patent
office and they arranged to have the entire TeleVue eyepiece product
line essentially mimicked one for one at a factory in Japan. The
external similarities of what would be marketed as the Meade "Series
4000" were obvious:

for TeleVue Nagler: 4.8mm, 7mm, 9mm, 11mm, 13mm Nagler

Meade introduced: 4.7mm, 6.7mm, 8.8mm and 14mm "Ultra Wide" (which
ironically is the title of the Nagler Patent)

Similar duplication of the other TeleVue oculars by design concept, and
focal length were done from the 7.4mm Plossl up to the 55mm Plossl
(where Meade claimed a 56mm), and the TeleVue "Wide Field" series. And
for every proven performance specification published by TeleVue, the
many pages of Meade product advertisements claimed an improvement."

So Meade has never attempted taken anything someone else has designed,
used it without their consent and made money off of it?

Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:52:54
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> gobbletwo wrote:
> > I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> > well as the advertisement next to it.
> >
> > Comments are solicited. ;-)
>
>
> It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> about, and didn't say what was being advertised.

Having finally found a copy of the issue in question on the newstand, I
can note that the editorial took the position shared by many in this
thread - it's a pity that money is being spent on lawyers instead of
benefiting the amateur astronomers who are the customers of both
companies.

John Savard

Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:49:21
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

George Normandin wrote:
> As for Meade's concern about sales: I think that it's more of a 'status
> thing' if the Company 7 website can be believed. Their webpage on Meade
> states that over 85% of Meade sales are generated by small cheap scopes sold
> to Wal-Mart.

That would explain why Wal-Mart is not named in this action.

Presumably, it doesn't even sell the LX200R, never mind the RC400,
then.

John Savard

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:11:55
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> > gobbletwo wrote:
> > > I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> > > well as the advertisement next to it.
> > >
> > > Comments are solicited. ;-)
> >
> >
> > It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> > about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
>
> Having finally found a copy of the issue in question on the newstand, I
> can note that the editorial took the position shared by many in this
> thread - it's a pity that money is being spent on lawyers instead of
> benefiting the amateur astronomers who are the customers of both
> companies.

I picked up the January issue over the weekend and read the
editorial with interest.

The whole thing is sad. It sounds like Meade started with the
Ritchey-Chretien optical design, then applied modern design
and optics to find a way to mass-produce them. If they can
make better telescopes at better prices, more power to them.

If the plaintiffs are afraid of losing market share, perhaps they
too should make better telescopes. Too many people have the
idea that if they have been making their money a certain way for
some time, they are somehow entitled to do so in perpetuity.
This is utter nonsense.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:36:44
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

laura halliday wrote:
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
>> > gobbletwo wrote:
>> > > I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
>> > > well as the advertisement next to it.
>> > >
>> > > Comments are solicited. ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> > It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
>> > about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
>>
>> Having finally found a copy of the issue in question on the newstand, I
>> can note that the editorial took the position shared by many in this
>> thread - it's a pity that money is being spent on lawyers instead of
>> benefiting the amateur astronomers who are the customers of both
>> companies.
>
> I picked up the January issue over the weekend and read the
> editorial with interest.
>
> The whole thing is sad. It sounds like Meade started with the
> Ritchey-Chretien optical design, then applied modern design
> and optics to find a way to mass-produce them. If they can
> make better telescopes at better prices, more power to them.
>
> If the plaintiffs are afraid of losing market share, perhaps they
> too should make better telescopes. Too many people have the
> idea that if they have been making their money a certain way for
> some time, they are somehow entitled to do so in perpetuity.
> This is utter nonsense.

We discussed this at an astronomy club meeting last weekend. The real
R-C design needs no corrector lens at the front of the scope, and
consists of two hyperbolic mirrors. The advantage of this design is no
achromatic distortion. This makes the design very good for
astrophotography. That's why the Hubble is an R-C scope.

Meade's design has a corrector lens, which introduces achromatic
distortion. It's a modified catadioptric telescope, but it's not an R-C
telescope. If it's really a better telescope, the design should be named
properly, and not as a Richey-Chretien. The plaintiffs (which make real
R-C scopes) are suing because they claim the scope is fraudulently
misnamed.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:51:27
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:36:44 -0700, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net >
wrote:

>We discussed this at an astronomy club meeting last weekend. The real
>R-C design needs no corrector lens at the front of the scope, and
>consists of two hyperbolic mirrors. The advantage of this design is no
>achromatic distortion. This makes the design very good for
>astrophotography. That's why the Hubble is an R-C scope.

That isn't the reason the HST is an RC. RCs are far from ideal- their
spot size is quite a bit larger than many other designs, including
classical Cassegrains. The RC design is popular for scientific
applications because of its lack of coma. Even though stars may be
somewhat bloated at the edges of the field, they are still round, which
is very important for many types of analysis (and also facilitates
deconvolution). Meade's claim seems to be that they have improved on the
RC, at least in terms of some specifications aesthetic imagers find
valuable. I don't know if this is really the case, but it's certainly
possible.

It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:18:05
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.

My guess is that that is largely a factor of the HST being an RC. That
makes for good ad copy.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 06 Dec 2006 02:53:35
From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Brian Tung wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
>> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.
>
> My guess is that that is largely a factor of the HST being an RC. That
> makes for good ad copy.

Aren't the Biggies pretty much ALL Ritchey-Chretien, before and after
the HST?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:33:49
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:53:35 GMT, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Brian Tung wrote:
>> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
>>> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.
>>
>> My guess is that that is largely a factor of the HST being an RC. That
>> makes for good ad copy.
>
>Aren't the Biggies pretty much ALL Ritchey-Chretien, before and after
>the HST?

The advantage of a R-C compared to a design with a paraboloid primary
is that it has a larger usable field and is coma free. It still has
astigmatism off axis. The astigmatic star images are symmetrical and
therefore tolerable because the astigmatism doesn't affect
measurements of position. Comatic star images aren't symmetrical and
therefore affect measurements of position. Are Meade R-C telescopes
coma free?

An SCT could be coma free if the primary and secondary mirrors were
spherical and the radii had the same centers. The corrector plate
also would need to be located at the same center. The telescope would
be twice as long as a compact SCT like Celestron's and Meade's and
there would still be field curvature.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:23:36
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

William Hamblen wrote:

>
> An SCT could be coma free if the primary and secondary mirrors were
> spherical and the radii had the same centers. The corrector plate
> also would need to be located at the same center. The telescope would
> be twice as long as a compact SCT like Celestron's and Meade's and
> there would still be field curvature.

Bud,

Methinks you just accurately described the "Schmidt Camera" :)

Regards

Bill

Date: 06 Dec 2006 11:53:26
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:23:36 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>William Hamblen wrote:
>
>>
>> An SCT could be coma free if the primary and secondary mirrors were
>> spherical and the radii had the same centers. The corrector plate
>> also would need to be located at the same center. The telescope would
>> be twice as long as a compact SCT like Celestron's and Meade's and
>> there would still be field curvature.
>
>
>Bud,
>
>Methinks you just accurately described the "Schmidt Camera" :)
>
>
>Regards
>
>Bill

You'd have to replace the secondary with a plate holder to get a
schmidt camera, but they are a lot alike.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:23:39
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:53:35 GMT, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Aren't the Biggies pretty much ALL Ritchey-Chretien, before and after
>the HST?

Most, for the last 30 years or so. But for the reason I stated: it is a
good design for producing scientific data. And while it certainly does a
good job for aesthetic imaging, other designs arguably are better if
that's your goal.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:01:24
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

lal_truckee wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
>>> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.
>>
>> My guess is that that is largely a factor of the HST being an RC. That
>> makes for good ad copy.
>
> Aren't the Biggies pretty much ALL Ritchey-Chretien, before and after
> the HST?

Not Compton GRO.

Not Chandra AXAF.

Phil

Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:00:16
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

lal_truckee wrote:
> Aren't the Biggies pretty much ALL Ritchey-Chretien, before and after
> the HST?

Many of them. But I think the HST is the biggest dog in the public
perception.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:20:56
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:

>
> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.
>

Ok Chris,

You want to elaborate on this statement ? You going to tell Gendler and
all of the other RC owners that they own lousy imaging scopes too ?

You crack me up.

Bill

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:14:00
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:20:56 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>You want to elaborate on this statement ? You going to tell Gendler and
>all of the other RC owners that they own lousy imaging scopes too ?

Bill, you really need to learn how to read.

>You crack me up.

Too late, I'm afraid.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:40:30
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:20:56 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> You want to elaborate on this statement ? You going to tell Gendler and
>> all of the other RC owners that they own lousy imaging scopes too ?
>
> Bill, you really need to learn how to read.

Chris,

I'll ignore the public jibe and request, again, elaboration on your
statement.

>
>
>> You crack me up.
>
> Too late, I'm afraid.
>

Sticks and Stones ... :)

Bill

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:18:08
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pat O'Connell wrote:

>
> We discussed this at an astronomy club meeting last weekend. The real
> R-C design needs no corrector lens at the front of the scope, and
> consists of two hyperbolic mirrors. The advantage of this design is no
> achromatic distortion. This makes the design very good for
> astrophotography. That's why the Hubble is an R-C scope.
>
> Meade's design has a corrector lens, which introduces achromatic
> distortion. It's a modified catadioptric telescope, but it's not an R-C
> telescope. If it's really a better telescope, the design should be named
> properly, and not as a Richey-Chretien. The plaintiffs (which make real
> R-C scopes) are suing because they claim the scope is fraudulently
> misnamed.
>

Hi Pat,

It is unlikely that you or I will actually convince any of the Meade
sycophants lurking around. Meades marketing strategy is deplorable and I
am constantly amused by the counter arguments used by those having no
real knowledge of the legal action.

I doubt that any of the Meade sympathizers will read this but...

http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html

And for the timid:

"Although the complaint seeks monetary damages, an attorney for the
plaintiffs confirmed that the plaintiffs have extended offers to the
distributors to resolve the case without financial compensation,
provided that the distributors cease describing the controversial
telescopes as �Ritchey-Chretien� immediately."

Bottom line is that Meade and the other plaintiffs are in a position to
make this *all* go away and that from what we can tell they seem to be
unwilling to do so. This lends even more credibility to the position
held by RCOS in my view.

Meade wants to be to Astronomy as Micro$oft is to Computers

The Meade LXR is nothing but an Improved SCT. as is the LX200R.
Suggesting that they are anything but is hogwash. Hubble in your
backyard..... indeed. :)

Regards

Bill

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:27:20
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:4yydh.562$Gr2.168@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

> It is unlikely that you or I will actually convince any of the Meade
> sycophants lurking around. Meades marketing strategy is deplorable and

As explained earlier, people who disagree with you aren't necessarily
"Meade sycophants".

> I am constantly amused by the counter arguments used by those having
> no real knowledge of the legal action.

Well, as a total outsider, I read the whole filing form line 1 to the very
end. If you are so familiar with the case, I am amazed that you didn't
notice how fishy the phantom shopper was.

As far as I am concerned, this is so unethical it wraps the case.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:33:48
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

> As explained earlier, people who disagree with you aren't necessarily
> "Meade sycophants".

Well when those same souls were otherwise silent when Meade was suing
Celestron it makes one wonder :)

> Well, as a total outsider, I read the whole filing form line 1 to the very
> end. If you are so familiar with the case, I am amazed that you didn't
> notice how fishy the phantom shopper was.
>
> As far as I am concerned, this is so unethical it wraps the case.
>

Point taken. I simply feel otherwise. That Meade went way over the top
with their marketing hype.

Regards

Bill

Date: 07 Dec 2006 10:25:52
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-07 07:33 +0900, William R. Mattil wrote:
> Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

>> end. If you are so familiar with the case, I am amazed that you didn't
>> notice how fishy the phantom shopper was.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, this is so unethical it wraps the case.
>>
>
> Point taken. I simply feel otherwise. That Meade went way over the top
> with their marketing hype.

There's nothing "phantom" about Dan Azari's involvement whatsoever.

I, for one, will be very interested to see whether he winds up facing
fraud or perjury charges in connection with this case.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:37:07
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Trane Francks wrote:
> On 2006-12-07 07:33 +0900, William R. Mattil wrote:
>> Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
>
>>> end. If you are so familiar with the case, I am amazed that you
>>> didn't notice how fishy the phantom shopper was.
>>>
>>> As far as I am concerned, this is so unethical it wraps the case.
>>>
>>
>> Point taken. I simply feel otherwise. That Meade went way over the top
>> with their marketing hype.
>
> There's nothing "phantom" about Dan Azari's involvement whatsoever.
>
> I, for one, will be very interested to see whether he winds up facing
> fraud or perjury charges in connection with this case.
>
> trane

Dont see why that should ever come up. It's not about
how he represented himself, but weather Meade falsely
or not represented their product.

Since Meade was selling to him, and not the other way around
how he represented himself to Meade is totally irrelevant.
Only if Meade (mis) represented their product, nothing else.
There is no law that says that a seller has to completely
identify themselves to a seller, or how they do. None at all.
Matter of fact, a buyer can lie about themselves.........

And personally I agree. I see the Meade RCX scopes as nothing
more than an *improved SCT*. Meade (IMHO) is taking a
cheap PR shot to sell their scopes. One that wasn't really
necessary at all either.

Sadly, no one seemed this PO'd at Meade's totally bogus
suit (s) against Celestron.
Meade is getting exactly the business model they expouse
right back at them.

And all I can think of over this, is that it is business
as usual for American corporations........
(and we all pay the lawyers fee's in the long run......)

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.3.9

Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:44:16
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:

> And personally I agree. I see the Meade RCX scopes as nothing
> more than an *improved SCT*. Meade (IMHO) is taking a
> cheap PR shot to sell their scopes. One that wasn't really
> necessary at all either.
>

Truly you are an enlightened soul <g >

>
> Sadly, no one seemed this PO'd at Meade's totally bogus
> suit (s) against Celestron.
> Meade is getting exactly the business model they expouse
> right back at them.

Indeed ! And this creates the feeling that most of the rhetoric bandied
about bashing RCOS and Paul Jones for this suit is actually just Meade
lovers voicing their displeasure. "How can Meade possibly be at fault
here " ??? Doh ...... A Hubble for your Backyard ? Indeed.

>
>
> And all I can think of over this, is that it is business
> as usual for American corporations........
> (and we all pay the lawyers fee's in the long run......)
>

Sadly true as well. Though in this instance Meade, at least, was given
the opportunity to correct their advertising and this would magically go
away. Meade, predictably, declined because to do so would be tantamount
to admitting that they were wrong.

Regards

Bill

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:16:39
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:4yydh.562$Gr2.168@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

> "Although the complaint seeks monetary damages, an attorney for the
> plaintiffs confirmed that the plaintiffs have extended offers to the
> distributors to resolve the case without financial compensation,
> provided that the distributors cease describing the controversial
> telescopes as �Ritchey-Chretien� immediately."

Is this authentic blackmail, or simply "improved advanced blackmail
technology"? ?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:51:46
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You need to go back to law school. Dan Azari is a long time technical
employee of RCOS and knew full well what he was buying when he bought
his Meade.

To file a complaint against Meade seeking damages for "fraudulent
misrepresentation that "caused Azari to buy the Meade instead of a RCOS
scope" is, arguably, fraud on the Court.

Many federal judges don't take kindly to these types of spurious
claims--Azari could well have some personal exposure himself for his
egregious misrepresentation to the Court. He is no ignorant buyer who
was misled by Meade advertising.

It would be fun to have Azari on the witness stand, under oath, to
explain how he "was misled by Meade" as he alleged under oath.

William R. Mattil wrote:

> > But it is hard to see
> > anyone buying a RCX without a minimum of research, without having read at
> > least a review, and it is hard to see a review that doesn't mention the
> > uncertainties surrounding the nature of the optical design.
>
> Really ? there are literally hundreds of just such purchases made every
> year and little or no research was apparently done. Or more likely the
> experience level of the person making the decision was lacking. The
> price tag means little here. People still make bad decisions even on
> expensive items. You, or I might not. But others do.
>
> >>> And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
> >>> _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a
> >>> cute but not believable character.
> >
> >> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.
> >
> > Have you actually read the complaint? He is simply too much.
>
> I am not an attorney but I have glanced through it and spoken with two
> of the complainants and understand their position.

> Regards
>
> Bill

Date: 07 Dec 2006 13:12:25
From: Joe Bergeron
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

In article <1165427506.014350.233600@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
<"M104galaxy@gmail.com" > wrote:

> You need to go back to law school. Dan Azari is a long time technical
> employee of RCOS and knew full well what he was buying when he bought
> his Meade.
>
> To file a complaint against Meade seeking damages for "fraudulent
> misrepresentation that "caused Azari to buy the Meade instead of a RCOS
> scope" is, arguably, fraud on the Court.

Wasn't the point to this exercise to show how easily someone who was
NOT an optical expert could be misled by this Meade sales tactic?

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 02:07:02
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:36:44 -0700, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >We discussed this at an astronomy club meeting last weekend. The real
> >R-C design needs no corrector lens at the front of the scope, and
> >consists of two hyperbolic mirrors. The advantage of this design is no
> >achromatic distortion. This makes the design very good for
> >astrophotography. That's why the Hubble is an R-C scope.
>
> That isn't the reason the HST is an RC. RCs are far from ideal- their
> spot size is quite a bit larger than many other designs, including
> classical Cassegrains. The RC design is popular for scientific
> applications because of its lack of coma. Even though stars may be
> somewhat bloated at the edges of the field, they are still round, which
> is very important for many types of analysis (and also facilitates
> deconvolution). Meade's claim seems to be that they have improved on the
> RC, at least in terms of some specifications aesthetic imagers find
> valuable. I don't know if this is really the case, but it's certainly
> possible.
>
> It is a little amusing that the RC has become so representative of good
> scopes, when it isn't all that great a design for aesthetic imagers.

Chris,

What you're saying is simply not true. A RC is as good as any other
2-mirror scope in terms of "spot size", whatever this means, at the
center of the field and better than any other at the edge of field. Not
only that, but if you want to correct for the 4 main aberrations at the
primary focus, the RC is the best design you can have. It is also far
better than most if not all at the Cassegrain focus.

As for "pretty images", a quick tour of the "who is who" of
astroimagers would show how strong is the RC following. Do I really
need to spell few names?

Andrea T.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:09:19
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You missed the whole point. Azari apparently lied in his Petition filed
in Federal Court, alleging that he "was taken in by the Meade
advertising and therefore bought a Meade scope instead of a RCOS".
Azari WORKS for RCOS as a programmer.

At least in the US, federal judges don't take kindly to that kind of
fraudulent behavior in their Courts.

We shall see. And patent fights are very common in the US, crossing all
industries.

You people with no legal or business background commenting on such
matters are amusing.

AM wrote:
> Trane Francks wrote:
> > On 2006-12-07 07:33 +0900, William R. Mattil wrote:
> >> Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
> >
> >>> end. If you are so familiar with the case, I am amazed that you
> >>> didn't notice how fishy the phantom shopper was.
> >>>
> >>> As far as I am concerned, this is so unethical it wraps the case.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Point taken. I simply feel otherwise. That Meade went way over the top
> >> with their marketing hype.
> >
> > There's nothing "phantom" about Dan Azari's involvement whatsoever.
> >
> > I, for one, will be very interested to see whether he winds up facing
> > fraud or perjury charges in connection with this case.
> >
> > trane
>
>
> Dont see why that should ever come up. It's not about
> how he represented himself, but weather Meade falsely
> or not represented their product.
>
> Since Meade was selling to him, and not the other way around
> how he represented himself to Meade is totally irrelevant.
> Only if Meade (mis) represented their product, nothing else.
> There is no law that says that a seller has to completely
> identify themselves to a seller, or how they do. None at all.
> Matter of fact, a buyer can lie about themselves.........
>
> And personally I agree. I see the Meade RCX scopes as nothing
> more than an *improved SCT*. Meade (IMHO) is taking a
> cheap PR shot to sell their scopes. One that wasn't really
> necessary at all either.
>
>
> Sadly, no one seemed this PO'd at Meade's totally bogus
> suit (s) against Celestron.
> Meade is getting exactly the business model they expouse
> right back at them.
>
>
> And all I can think of over this, is that it is business
> as usual for American corporations........
> (and we all pay the lawyers fee's in the long run......)
>
>
>
> --
>
> AM
>
> http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
>
> OS X 10.3.9

Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:47:16
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"M104galaxy@gmail.com" <M104galaxy@gmail.com > wrote in
news:1165507759.534774.31900@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

> You missed the whole point. Azari apparently lied in his Petition
> filed in Federal Court, alleging that he "was taken in by the Meade
> advertising and therefore bought a Meade scope instead of a RCOS".
> Azari WORKS for RCOS as a programmer.

Now that I think about it, that could be why he bought a Meade ;-)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:19:59
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:

>
> You people with no legal or business background commenting on such
> matters are amusing.
>

Little touchy there are ya ?

Calm down, get a grip, and dont take it so
personally.....

Geeze.....

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.3.9}

Date: 07 Dec 2006 03:24:12
From: JohnFG
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Now I am hopelessly confused. I have read the summons delivered to
Meade from RCOS and others about how evil Meade is in their advertizing
etc etc and now when I do just a bit of research on RC Telescopes I
find ..... on WIKI - Ritchey-Chr=E9tien telescope
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Ritchey-Chr=E9tien telescope or RCT is a specialized Cassegrain
telescope with a hyperbolic primary and a hyperbolic secondary mirror.
It was invented in the early 1910s by American astronomer George Willis
Ritchey (1864-1945) and French astronomer Henri Chr=E9tien
(1879-1956). Ritchey constructed the first successful RCT, which had
a diameter of 0.5 metres, in 1927. The second RCT was a 1-metre
instrument constructed by Ritchey for the United States Naval
Observatory.

The Ritchey-Chr=E9tien design is free of third-order coma and spherical
aberration, NOTE ---although it does suffer from fifth-order coma,----
END NOTE severe large-angle astigmatism, and comparatively severe
field curvature (Rutten, 67)."

As one reads the RC Design suffers from 5th order Coma, and all along I
believed the advert on RCOS's web site (Home page mark you) ---

" Ritchey-Chr=E9tien is a specialized Cassegrain reflector utilizing
true hyperbolic surfaces. All reflectors typically have an aberration
called coma - all except for the Ritchey-Chr=E9tien. The hyperbolic
mirrors of the Ritchey-Chr=E9tien make this design coma free"

Just when I was thinking RCOS was our knight in shining armour, I find
that they also are careful with the truth.
No coma is no coma. No coma does not mean no 3rd order coma and only
5th Order coma, I don't care if I can see it or not, No coma is No
coma.

I have an RCX 400 14" and I know it is not a pure RC but strangely, it
performs beautifully with no visible coma. Even buying it stretched my
budget and I would never think of an RCOS priced telescope. Thanks
Meade.

Hope you got my drift.

John

Date: 08 Dec 2006 19:24:25
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org >
wrote:

>I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
>well as the advertisement next to it.
>
>Comments are solicited. ;-)
>
>jon

I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
good points, which I'll get to later.

My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.

The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
"Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
other than what they thought they were buying.

Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
that we should encourage.

But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.

I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.

The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 20:06:09
From: Melweaver
Subject: SONY's VS SONY

SHAME ON YOU, SONY (Senate - March 22, 1991)
United State Library of Congress

ENJOY!

[Page: S4092]Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the
Senate floor to tell you and my colleagues about a drama that has
unfolded in Baltimore, come to a head in Baltimore, and it tells the
story of how a big, foreign-owned corporation has set about wrecking
the American dream of a small woman entrepreneur. The story is a
simple one.

A woman comes to this country from the Philippines and her first name
is Sony. Her last name is Florendo. She goes about working hard to
save a few pennies to open a small downtown restaurant in Baltimore.
Through her own great recipies and sweat equity, she builds a
business, and she calls it Sony's.

In comes Sony Electronics and tells her she cannot do business using
their name. They then proceed to take her into court, threaten her
with all kinds of lawsuits, and finally the other day they won. And
Sony Florendo's restaurant is no longer in Baltimore now. It is S.
Florendo.

Well, you know, I just do not think that is right. I do not think
megacorporations with megabucks ought to crush a small entrepreneur
who in no way jeopardizes their operation nor, by the very nature of
the products they sell, poach on that reputation.

This woman's business sold delightful Asian food. It did not sell
TV's; it did not sell radios. And it in no way was poaching on the
reputation of Sony electronic products.

Well, Mrs. Florendo has no legal remedies anymore. The law just was
not on her side. But I will tell you, this Senator is on her side. I
have just written to Sony Corp., and I want to tell you what I said:

[Page: S4093]Dear Mr. Morita: Shame on you, Sony.

Shame on you for forcing Mrs. Resurrecion `Sony' Robles-Florendo to
remove her name from her restaurants in my hometown of Baltimore,
Maryland, I want you to voluntarily and immediately reconsider this
decision.

Your company won't let Mrs. Sony Florendo use her own good name to
sell her own good food in her own country that allows you to trade
freely even as you treat her unfairly.

I've known Sony Florendo for years. I can't understand how this woman
is a threat to Sony Corporation. She is a fine and decent woman who
serves delicious food at a small downtown restaurant at Harborplace
and at a suburban mall--I've been there and eaten there. She sells
food, not electronics or anything that competes with your company.

Sony Corporation has billions of dollars. Why are you bullying her?

You brought a $3 million trademark lawsuit against Mrs. Florendo in
1984. You knew she couldn't afford to take on your high priced
lawyers. But she tried to work with you. She even changed her
restaurants' name from `Sony's' to `Sony Florendo's.' Even that
wasn't good enough.

Do you think Phillips Petroleum should follow your lead and sue
Phillip's Crab House? Does Scott Paper Company have to sue Scott's
Hobby and Crafts Shop?

Sony Corporation may have the law on its side. But you do not have
common sense or even common decency on your side. I can't believe
that Sony can sign a $1 billion contract with Michael Jackson and
still feel your corporation is threatened by having a couple of `Sony
Florendo's' restaurants in Baltimore.

You should voluntarily reconsider this harassing, humiliating and
heavy handed decision. Let Sony Florendo use her good name. Then you
might restore your own good name as well.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Mr. President, Sony Corp. won the legal battle with Mrs. Florendo, but
guess what, her restaurants are open today. Her good spirit is there.
She loves this country. She loves this country, and she earns a
living, and she puts people to work.

Though Sony Corp. might have won the lawsuit, Mrs. Florendo wins the
battle. She is about hard work, sweat equity. She had to change the
restaurant's name, but if you talk to her, she is ready to go; she is
not going to be stopped.

I regretted that I had to do this, and most of all, I regretted that
while this woman was trying to earn a living,

establish her own reputation, and care for her family, she had to go
through all of this for the past several years.

Mr. President, I hope that the high-priced lobbyists out there for
Sony Corp. have heard my words, and I think I speak for all of
Maryland and all of America.

Sony Florendo has Barbara Mikulski, and I believe the U.S. Senate, on
her side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the
Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

From the Baltimore Sun, March 19, 1991

[FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN, MARCH 19, 1991]

Electronics Giant Finally Beats a Woman Named Sony

(BY CINDY HARPER-EVANS)
It's been four years since `Big Sony vs. Little Sony' headlines
appeared in local and international papers, highlighting the unseemly
controversy between small Baltimore restaurateur Sony Florendo and
giant Japanese electronics manufacturer Sony Corp.

But to Mrs. Florendo, owner of two Philippine-Asian restaurants and a
catering operation bearing her name, the battle she fought in the
U.S. District Court just a few blocks from her main office on Park
Avenue is still very real.

Today, Mrs. Florendo must take the name `Sony' off the signs on her
restaurants at Harborplace and Owings Mills, her banquet hall on
Belair Road and her main office downtown. She says she is still
struggling to decide the new name of the restaurant she has owned
since 1982.

`Oh, I don't know. Maybe it will be S.R. Florendo or maybe just S.
Florendo,' she said yesterday, her voice choking at the thought of
changing the restaurant's name from `something that has been mine
since I was a child.'

The name change is part of the deal Mrs. Florendo reached with Sony
Corp. in 1987 to drop the $2.9 million lawsuit it had filed against
her for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition and
deliberate confusion of consumers.

Originally, Mrs. Florendo's restaurants were called `Sony's.' In
response to the court order, she initially changed the name to `Sony
Florendo's.' She had until today to get rid of the `Sony' nickname
altogether from all of her signs and advertising.

Mrs. Florendo has not yet ordered new signs and a new letterhead for
her restaurants or decided how they will be designed.

`She is trying to put off the inevitable--to think about other
things,' her husband, Gerardo Florendo, said.

Sony Corp.'s hard stance with a small entrepreneur is not unusual; the
company makes a habit of defending its trademark aggressively. It has
won infringement cases against businesses that sell everything from
chocolate to bicycles.

But the Japanese manufacturer's actions have had a big effect on Mrs.
Florendo, 54, who was born Juana Evelina Resurrecion Robles in
Cabanatuan, the Philippines, a few years before World War II began.

The hardest times in her life `all have to do with the Japanese,' Mrs.
Florendo said, her head shaking in disbelief and her eyes welling with
tears as she begins to tell a story she says she has never shared
publicly.

When she was 4, Mrs. Florendo's father was taken prisoner by Japanese
soldiers. He was picked up at a restaurant in Manila while he was
having lunch, she said.

Her father was interrogated and tortured for 10 days, Mrs. Florendo
said. She said he was about to be killed but was released after he
was able to prove to his captors through a newspaper article that he
was a judge.

`My grandfather had his spinal column smashed by Japanese and had to
live as an invalid for the rest of his life. Cousins were slapped so
hard on the side of their faces by the Japanese that they lost some
of their hearing,' Mrs. Florendo said.

At the age of 5, she had her `first negotiation with the Japanese,'
Mrs. Florendo recalled.

The Robles family owned one of the two pianos in their town. One day
Japanese soldiers came and took the Robles' piano back to their
barracks.

`I was able to convince a soldier to come and pick me up so I could
still practice the piano,' Mrs. Florendo recalled.

`That time I was able to negotiate, but with Sony Corp., there was no
compromise because it had to do with money,' Mrs. Florendo said.

Several years ago, Mrs. Florendo said, she wanted to deal with her
hurt over the Sony Corp. experience by starting an organization to
help small entrepreneurs engaged in expensive legal battles.

`It was not possible for me to fight Sony because each day my husband,
my son and I spent away from my restaurant, it meant something was not
getting done or we had to pay someone to take our places. That is very
expensive,' Mrs. Florendo said. In addition, she said, the legal fees
were exorbitant.

But Mrs. Florendo said she gave her idea up.

`It was very painful for me to keep remembering my experience. It made
me very angry, though I try not to be,' she said.

`But one thing I've learned from all this is that when you are honest
about what you do, you can survive even the biggest fall,' she said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:14:57
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: SONY's VS SONY

On 09 Dec 2006 20:06:09 GMT,
midnightmadness@netzero-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Melweaver) wrote:

>[Page: S4092]Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the
>Senate floor to tell you and my colleagues about a drama that has
>unfolded in Baltimore, come to a head in Baltimore, and it tells the
>story of how a big, foreign-owned corporation has set about wrecking
>the American dream of a small woman entrepreneur. The story is a
>simple one...

Interesting. Legally, she probably would have won, but our system is set
up in such a way that carrying out such a fight to the end can be nearly
impossible for small players.

Apparently, trademark law changed in 1996 to make it easier for
companies to do things like this. Well, it's part of the same system
that administers patents, which has been severely broken for years (to
the extent that many patents are illegally issued). I guess it should be
no surprise that trademark law is similarly damaged.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 09 Dec 2006 12:32:27
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Get a grip!! look at dozens of ads in the current Sky & Tel, all
claiming their products are the "best", "ultimate", "color free APO's
for $400", etc , etc.

My favorite is the Teleview ad on page 2 which clearly implies that you
can see the full Veil nebula in full color no less with the 22mm
Nagler--look at the diagram which dominates the full page ad. Look at
the Canon ad on page 15-should all the dedicated CCD astro-camera
companies sue Canon and Jack Newton? Geez!!

No one is that stupid, right? It is called "puffery" and is not
actionable at law in the US.

The only thing potentially very serious I see in this case is Dan
Azari's apparent lies to the Court about being misled by the Meade
advertising into buying a Meade instead of a RCOS--Azari is a technical
employee of RCOS--a small fact he neglected to mention in his Court
Petition.

I hope the Court comes down on Azari and RCOS like a ton of bricks.
This case smacks of fraud on the Court!

Paul Winalski wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> >well as the advertisement next to it.
> >
> >Comments are solicited. ;-)
> >
> >jon
>
> I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
> biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
> good points, which I'll get to later.
>
> My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
> others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
> marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
> is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
> realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
> elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.
>
> The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
> deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
> eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
> adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
> "Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
> Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
> worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
> other than what they thought they were buying.
>
> Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
> that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
> the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
> secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
> you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
> get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
> the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
> that we should encourage.
>
> But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
> Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
> hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
> dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
> Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.
>
> I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
> RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
> attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.
>
> The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
> puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
> pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.
>
> -Paul W.
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:31:01
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Paul Winalski wrote:
> [...]
> One of the plaintiffs in the suit alleges that this is precisely what
> happened to them. This plaintiff alleges that they ordered a Meade
> scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
> Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
> a Ritchey-Chretien.

You are aware that Dan Azari is an RCOS employee/contractor? He writes
their control software, and some of his astropics using RCOS gear can
be
found on NOAO's web site. He's not exactly a babe in the words and,
as others have written in this thread previously, his claims appear to
constitute perjury and fraud upon the Court.

> [...]
> Suppose I were a fast food chain and I decided I wanted to sell
> grilled ground pork patties. Would I be allowed to call them "Super
> Hamburgers"? I don't think so, because the term "hamburger" implies
> ground beef.

Oh? Check the labeling some time. "Ham" itself means pork. There
are also soyburgers, vegeburgers, bisonburgers. etc. and it's been
alleged
Burger King's "hamburgers" are made from kangaroos. If it doesn't
explicitly
state "beef burger" then don't assume it is because it won't be. "long
pork"
implies cannibalism, and that's why SPAM sells so well in the South
Pacific
islands -- it apparently tastes like long pork. :-)

Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:17:31
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Wonder what Carl Zambuto or Roland Christian would have to say about
this verbatim statement from the Star Instruments website:

" STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, 1/20 wave
r.m.s. on all systems.
STAR INSTRUMENTS continues to be concerned with the false advertising
claims being made by amateur optical suppliers who claim 1/10 to 1/20
wave optics. These claims tend to confuse the amateur astronomer into
believing you must have 1/10 wave optics, when in reality there are
very few 1/4 wave 8" and larger optical systems. The fact is that Pyrex
is not a zero expansion glass and, therefore, cannot keep a figure
better than 1/4 wave front."

Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? Or maybe
AstroPhysics and Zambuto optics ought to be sued for their "false
advertising claims??

What f__king nonsense!

Paul Winalski wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> >well as the advertisement next to it.
> >
> >Comments are solicited. ;-)
> >
> >jon
>
> I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
> biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
> good points, which I'll get to later.
>
> My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
> others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
> marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
> is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
> realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
> elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.
>
> The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
> deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
> eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
> adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
> "Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
> Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
> worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
> other than what they thought they were buying.
>
> Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
> that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
> the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
> secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
> you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
> get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
> the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
> that we should encourage.
>
> But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
> Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
> hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
> dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
> Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.
>
> I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
> RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
> attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.
>
> The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
> puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
> pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.
>
> -Paul W.
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:14:25
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

This whole fiasco gets better and better as you closely examine both
the Star and the RCOS web sites. Below is an announcement of a "new
astrograph" being sold by RCOS:

"For the past several years, Star Instruments has been developing a
low-cost alternative to our professional series of Ritchey-Chr=E9tien
optics. Our goal was to design a system with as flat a field as
possible, no color and a system that could be produced less
expensively. With these goals in mind we designed a system using Pyrex
mirror blanks, a 50% central obstruction and a short back focus.

The Star Instruments Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Astrograph is the ultimate
optical system producing impressive results. When compared to f8
coma-free Schmidt-Cassegrain systems, the RC Astrograph has no color,
approximately twice as flat a field, less astigmatism and a faster f
ratio - the qualities that advanced astrophotographers have been
seeking for deep sky astrophotography. Optics are high quality,
diffraction-limited for maximum performance."

OK--Star states on their web site that Pyrex is inferior for mirrors
and can't hold better than 1/4 wave and RCOS on the other hand states
on website that their Star manufactured Pyrex system is the "ultimate
optical system"!!

WHICH IS IT??? LETS SUE BOTH STAR AND RCOS FOR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC,
RIGHT???

BTW, the Hubble is not a pure RC. Remember the original focus problems
with its mirror? Now corrected with "eyeglass-type lenses"? Sounds like
the Meade RCX to me.

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> Wonder what Carl Zambuto or Roland Christian would have to say about
> this verbatim statement from the Star Instruments website:
>
> " STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, 1/20 wave
> r.m.s. on all systems.
> STAR INSTRUMENTS continues to be concerned with the false advertising
> claims being made by amateur optical suppliers who claim 1/10 to 1/20
> wave optics. These claims tend to confuse the amateur astronomer into
> believing you must have 1/10 wave optics, when in reality there are
> very few 1/4 wave 8" and larger optical systems. The fact is that Pyrex
> is not a zero expansion glass and, therefore, cannot keep a figure
> better than 1/4 wave front."
>
>
> Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? Or maybe
> AstroPhysics and Zambuto optics ought to be sued for their "false
> advertising claims??
>
> What f__king nonsense!
>
>
>
>
> Paul Winalski wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> > >well as the advertisement next to it.
> > >
> > >Comments are solicited. ;-)
> > >
> > >jon
> >
> > I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
> > biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
> > good points, which I'll get to later.
> >
> > My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
> > others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
> > marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
> > is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
> > realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
> > elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.
> >
> > The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
> > deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
> > eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
> > adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
> > "Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
> > Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
> > worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
> > other than what they thought they were buying.
> >
> > Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
> > that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
> > the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
> > secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
> > you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
> > get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
> > the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
> > that we should encourage.
> >
> > But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
> > Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
> > hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
> > dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
> > Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.
> >
> > I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
> > RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
> > attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.
> >
> > The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
> > puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
> > pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.
> >=20
> > -Paul W.
> > ----------
> > Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:34:52
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You are waste of oxygen.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:32:47
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You missed the point moron. RCOS makes a big deal out of using "Just
two mirrors to cover the entire field perfectly without coma or other
optical abberations and digs Meade for using an additional lens with
'two optical surfaces' degrading the image."

I know perfectly well the difference between a corrector and a field
flattener but they both add "additional glass surfaces to the optical
train", don't they moron?

And what is your take on Dan Azari, the RCOS technical guy, who swore
under oath that he was duped by Meade into thinking their scopes were
identical to RCOS scopes? Is he also a moron? He certainly does appear
to be a liar. Did he do the right thing in his lawsuit perjury, moron?

William R. Mattil wrote:
> M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", why does it need
> > a "field flattener"?
>
> What a moron. The same reason that AstroPhysics sells one for the
> Refractors. And TMB and a host of others. You might want to read up on
> the differences between a corrector and a flattener.
>
> >
> > And, obviously, they are introducing additional "glass lenses" in their
> > optical train"---just like the Meade RCX does.
>
> No. Anything not produced by Meade will probably work. And a Full
> aperture corrector is not a flattener. [yawn]
>
>
> No wonder you refuse to actually identify yourself.
>
> Bill

Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:23:41
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

It gets better. The hypocrits at Anacortes have settled with RCOS but
sell and are still advertising a TAK "Baker RC"

See:

http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?m=3D&pid=3D1558&display=3Dreviews

This "RC" apparently has a corrector plate ( with two "lenses" similar
to the Meade RCX corrector).

I'm confused--is this "Baker RC" better than the RCOS RC??? The
advertising copy seems to indicate it is. Sue Tak??? Sue Anacortes??

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> This is fun and so easy. RCOS is run by incredible hypocrites, This
> from their web site:
>
>
>
> "Designed exclusively for RC Optical Systems, this Field Flattener
> reduces field curvature and off axis astigmatism, while also reducing
> off axis spot size. The FFC mounts on the back plate or inside the 2004
> Model (or newer) PIR. There is no telecompression and will allow the
> optics to operate at their native f/ratio.
>
> Designed to work with the 12.5RC, 14.5RC, 16RC, and 20RC. Ideal for use
> with 35mm format (CCD or Film).
> RC Optical Systems, Inc. An Arizona Corporation
> 4025 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 105, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, 928-526-5380"
>
>
>
>
> If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", why does it need
> a "field flattener"?
>
> And, obviously, they are introducing additional "glass lenses" in their
> optical train"---just like the Meade RCX does.
>
> Where are all the self-styled "optical experts" from this group?
> Bratislov?? How do you resolve all these conflicting claims of RCOS
> and Star Instruments. It will be fun to watch this lawsuit as it
> proceeds.
>
> And I note that RCOS still refuses to identify Dan Azari as one on
> their employees on their website discussion of the lawsuit. Azari
> "misled by Meade advertising into buying a Meade rather than a RCOS
> thinking they were identical?? What incredible BS to allege in a
> federal lawsuit when it is knowingly false.
>
> Star and RCOS have handed their heads on a plate to Meade.
>
>
>
> M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> > This whole fiasco gets better and better as you closely examine both
> > the Star and the RCOS web sites. Below is an announcement of a "new
> > astrograph" being sold by RCOS:
> >
> > "For the past several years, Star Instruments has been developing a
> > low-cost alternative to our professional series of Ritchey-Chr=E9tien
> > optics. Our goal was to design a system with as flat a field as
> > possible, no color and a system that could be produced less
> > expensively. With these goals in mind we designed a system using Pyrex
> > mirror blanks, a 50% central obstruction and a short back focus.
> >
> > The Star Instruments Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Astrograph is the ultimate
> > optical system producing impressive results. When compared to f8
> > coma-free Schmidt-Cassegrain systems, the RC Astrograph has no color,
> > approximately twice as flat a field, less astigmatism and a faster f
> > ratio - the qualities that advanced astrophotographers have been
> > seeking for deep sky astrophotography. Optics are high quality,
> > diffraction-limited for maximum performance."
> >
> > OK--Star states on their web site that Pyrex is inferior for mirrors
> > and can't hold better than 1/4 wave and RCOS on the other hand states
> > on website that their Star manufactured Pyrex system is the "ultimate
> > optical system"!!
> >
> > WHICH IS IT??? LETS SUE BOTH STAR AND RCOS FOR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC,
> > RIGHT???
> >
> > BTW, the Hubble is not a pure RC. Remember the original focus problems
> > with its mirror? Now corrected with "eyeglass-type lenses"? Sounds like
> > the Meade RCX to me.
> >
> >
> > M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Wonder what Carl Zambuto or Roland Christian would have to say about
> > > this verbatim statement from the Star Instruments website:
> > >
> > > " STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, 1/20 wave
> > > r.m.s. on all systems.
> > > STAR INSTRUMENTS continues to be concerned with the false advertising
> > > claims being made by amateur optical suppliers who claim 1/10 to 1/20
> > > wave optics. These claims tend to confuse the amateur astronomer into
> > > believing you must have 1/10 wave optics, when in reality there are
> > > very few 1/4 wave 8" and larger optical systems. The fact is that Pyr=
ex
> > > is not a zero expansion glass and, therefore, cannot keep a figure
> > > better than 1/4 wave front."
> > >
> > >
> > > Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? Or maybe
> > > AstroPhysics and Zambuto optics ought to be sued for their "false
> > > advertising claims??
> > >
> > > What f__king nonsense!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Winalski wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, =
as
> > > > >well as the advertisement next to it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Comments are solicited. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >jon
> > > >
> > > > I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
> > > > biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
> > > > good points, which I'll get to later.
> > > >
> > > > My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
> > > > others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
> > > > marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editori=
al
> > > > is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepi=
ece
> > > > realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
> > > > elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.
> > > >
> > > > The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a we=
ll-
> > > > deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
> > > > eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
> > > > adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
> > > > "Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the re=
al
> > > > Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
> > > > worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
> > > > other than what they thought they were buying.
> > > >
> > > > Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points o=
ut
> > > > that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
> > > > the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
> > > > secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
> > > > you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
> > > > get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree w=
ith
> > > > the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
> > > > that we should encourage.
> > > >
> > > > But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
> > > > Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
> > > > hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
> > > > dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
> > > > Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade=
's
> > > > RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
> > > > attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
> > > > puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
> > > > pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.
> > > >
> > > > -Paul W.
> > > > ----------
> > > > Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:36:53
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

This is fun and so easy. RCOS is run by incredible hypocrites, This
from their web site:

"Designed exclusively for RC Optical Systems, this Field Flattener
reduces field curvature and off axis astigmatism, while also reducing
off axis spot size. The FFC mounts on the back plate or inside the 2004
Model (or newer) PIR. There is no telecompression and will allow the
optics to operate at their native f/ratio.

Designed to work with the 12.5RC, 14.5RC, 16RC, and 20RC. Ideal for use
with 35mm format (CCD or Film).
RC Optical Systems, Inc. An Arizona Corporation
4025 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 105, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, 928-526-5380"

If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", why does it need
a "field flattener"?

And, obviously, they are introducing additional "glass lenses" in their
optical train"---just like the Meade RCX does.

Where are all the self-styled "optical experts" from this group?
Bratislov?? How do you resolve all these conflicting claims of RCOS
and Star Instruments. It will be fun to watch this lawsuit as it
proceeds.

And I note that RCOS still refuses to identify Dan Azari as one on
their employees on their website discussion of the lawsuit. Azari
"misled by Meade advertising into buying a Meade rather than a RCOS
thinking they were identical?? What incredible BS to allege in a
federal lawsuit when it is knowingly false.

Star and RCOS have handed their heads on a plate to Meade.

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> This whole fiasco gets better and better as you closely examine both
> the Star and the RCOS web sites. Below is an announcement of a "new
> astrograph" being sold by RCOS:
>
> "For the past several years, Star Instruments has been developing a
> low-cost alternative to our professional series of Ritchey-Chr=E9tien
> optics. Our goal was to design a system with as flat a field as
> possible, no color and a system that could be produced less
> expensively. With these goals in mind we designed a system using Pyrex
> mirror blanks, a 50% central obstruction and a short back focus.
>
> The Star Instruments Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Astrograph is the ultimate
> optical system producing impressive results. When compared to f8
> coma-free Schmidt-Cassegrain systems, the RC Astrograph has no color,
> approximately twice as flat a field, less astigmatism and a faster f
> ratio - the qualities that advanced astrophotographers have been
> seeking for deep sky astrophotography. Optics are high quality,
> diffraction-limited for maximum performance."
>
> OK--Star states on their web site that Pyrex is inferior for mirrors
> and can't hold better than 1/4 wave and RCOS on the other hand states
> on website that their Star manufactured Pyrex system is the "ultimate
> optical system"!!
>
> WHICH IS IT??? LETS SUE BOTH STAR AND RCOS FOR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC,
> RIGHT???
>
> BTW, the Hubble is not a pure RC. Remember the original focus problems
> with its mirror? Now corrected with "eyeglass-type lenses"? Sounds like
> the Meade RCX to me.
>
>
> M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wonder what Carl Zambuto or Roland Christian would have to say about
> > this verbatim statement from the Star Instruments website:
> >
> > " STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, 1/20 wave
> > r.m.s. on all systems.
> > STAR INSTRUMENTS continues to be concerned with the false advertising
> > claims being made by amateur optical suppliers who claim 1/10 to 1/20
> > wave optics. These claims tend to confuse the amateur astronomer into
> > believing you must have 1/10 wave optics, when in reality there are
> > very few 1/4 wave 8" and larger optical systems. The fact is that Pyrex
> > is not a zero expansion glass and, therefore, cannot keep a figure
> > better than 1/4 wave front."
> >
> >
> > Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? Or maybe
> > AstroPhysics and Zambuto optics ought to be sued for their "false
> > advertising claims??
> >
> > What f__king nonsense!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Winalski wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@yahow.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> > > >well as the advertisement next to it.
> > > >
> > > >Comments are solicited. ;-)
> > > >
> > > >jon
> > >
> > > I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
> > > biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
> > > good points, which I'll get to later.
> > >
> > > My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
> > > others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
> > > marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
> > > is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
> > > realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
> > > elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.
> > >
> > > The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
> > > deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
> > > eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
> > > adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
> > > "Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
> > > Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
> > > worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
> > > other than what they thought they were buying.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
> > > that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
> > > the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
> > > secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
> > > you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
> > > get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
> > > the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
> > > that we should encourage.
> > >
> > > But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
> > > Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
> > > hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
> > > dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
> > > Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.
> > >
> > > I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
> > > RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
> > > attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.
> > >
> > > The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
> > > puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
> > > pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.
> > >
> > > -Paul W.
> > > ----------
> > > Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:11:32
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:

>
> If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", why does it need
> a "field flattener"?

What a moron. The same reason that AstroPhysics sells one for the
Refractors. And TMB and a host of others. You might want to read up on
the differences between a corrector and a flattener.

>
> And, obviously, they are introducing additional "glass lenses" in their
> optical train"---just like the Meade RCX does.

No. Anything not produced by Meade will probably work. And a Full
aperture corrector is not a flattener. [yawn]

No wonder you refuse to actually identify yourself.

Bill

Date: 12 Dec 2006 07:49:35
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> This is fun and so easy.

Yes, plonking you is fun and easy.

You are the ultimate hypocrite.
Bet you were happy as can be when Meade
was taking Celestron to court.......

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:25:24
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Ahh--Our English deprived Russian "self-styled optics expert" weighs
in. I suppose he agrees with the Star Instruments website that no Pyrex
large thin mirror can hold a figure of better than 1/4 wave.

So that makes Simmons, Swayze, Zambuto Optics, Galaxy Optics, Nova
Optics, OMI.,Royce, Astro-Physics, etc, etc (all of whom claim to be
able to produce Pyrex mirrors better than 1/4 wave ) liars.

Interesting; no Pathetic. He is "waste" of bits.

bratislav3162@hotmail.com wrote:
> You are waste of oxygen.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:23:45
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Sport, you can't read and your ignorance of law is a joke. NO offer was
extended to Meade to resolve the case, only the distributors. See your
quote below.

And Meade is not a "plaintiff"; Meade is a DEFENDANT. The Plaintiffs
are Dan Azari ( making a probable fraudulent claim ), RCOS and Star
Instruments ( these last two alleged they lost over $800,000 in profits
to Meade. Pretty good markups here, wouldn't you say )??

William R. Mattil wrote:

> "Although the complaint seeks monetary damages, an attorney for the
> plaintiffs confirmed that the plaintiffs have extended offers to the
> distributors to resolve the case without financial compensation,
> provided that the distributors cease describing the controversial
> telescopes as "Ritchey-Chretien" immediately."
>
>
> Bottom line is that Meade and the other plaintiffs are in a position to
> make this *all* go away and that from what we can tell they seem to be
> unwilling to do so. This lends even more credibility to the position
> held by RCOS in my view.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:22:24
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Funny, I compared your website to that of Jack Newton and Jason Ware (
with their Meade astrophotos ) and concluded you ought to buy a Meade.
Maybe then you can do half as well as Ware and Newton.

William R. Mattil wrote:
> Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
> > Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
> > news:ni5km2lg64h2jj2bid82gljglpqlhecrfh@4ax.com:
> >
> >> "enhanced". Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact,
> >> made available, and the RCX design appears to have better optical
> >> performance in many respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read
> >
> > An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
> > beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade design
> > really works well.
>
> Then you probably still believe in Santa Claus <g> In my opinion what
> got Meade into trouble is the following:
>
> "Improved Ritchey Chretien" That is easily misconstrued as to mean...
>
> Improved = Better than an RCOS
>
> I suppose we could include OGS here as well since they also produce
> RC's. But I think that the intent is a fair approximation. Judging from
> the few responses that I have read about these Scopes the owners seem to
> like them and compare them with a *real* Ritchey even though they have
> no experience with one. Understandable, but still funny.
>
> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA. A who's who
> glance at the owners list of RCOS would support this thought.
>
> What I find particularly interesting about the Meade marketing strategy
> was not the RCX ..... though I am certain that the Primary is spherical.
> And thus this telescope fails the litmus test for a Ritchey anyway. But
> Meade at least made some wonderful improvements to the SCT with this.
> Fixed primary !?!? That's a godsend to imagers regardless of the
> gyrations that they go through in order to reduce mirror flop. But then
> Meade had to come out with the LX200R ..... sigh. Can you say SCT ?
>
> >
> > And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
> > _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a cute but
> > not believable character.
>
>
> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.
>
> It's easy to see this unless one has Meade tattooed on their ass. And
> fans of the SCT can take solace in the fact that Celestron seems to be
> above this type of skulduggery.
>
> I suspect that Meade will lose this. I doubt it will impact them much
> but at least more people are aware of what is going on. And that's a
> good thing.
>
> And furthermore I really doubt that this litigation has much to do with
> the smaller 10 and 12 inch varieties. It seems to be aimed at the much
> larger versions, 24 inch, and given their price point the damages could
> be large. And while Meade may not sell many to private individuals the
> sale of scopes to Universities and such is much more lucrative.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

Date: 17 Dec 2006 09:42:34
From: Dale
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Well, I know two people who bought Meades fake RC scope and feel duped. Not
sure they would join a suit though. They figure that they got what they paid
for. They would have never spent the money for an RCOS scope so I can't see
how RCOS can claim a loss of sales or profit.
They were duped and thought they were getting an RC scope that was cheaper
due to mass production but many people would say they just didn't do enough
research. I guess each person has a different sense of when "buyer beware"
slips to "fraud". You could sue every cheap telescope maker that advertises
a 50mm scope with unuseable 800x power .
Dale

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:18:51
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

WOW!! Someone who understands the nuances of the lawsuit.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54 -0700, "canopus56"
> <canopus56@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
> >principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
> >they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
> >their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
> >would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
> >that I can afford to buy.
>
> Yes, but it isn't clear to me that any deceptive claims were made here.
> There is no real precedent for how generic optical designs are named in
> commerce, particularly when modified with adjectives like "enhanced".
> Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact, made available,
> and the RCX design appears to have better optical performance in many
> respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read the posted lawsuit,
> and I simply don't see how anybody was harmed, either the public or
> RCOS.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:15:56
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You have it backwards--if the "only people they could dupe is a novice
astronomer ", how did Meade cost Star and RCOS over $800,000 in sales
as alleged in the lawsuit??

How many "novice astronomers buy $40,000 RCOS scopes?? The lawsuit
alleges RCOS lost something over 100 sales to Meade. BS, right??

Matthew Ota wrote:
> And what the marketing "experts' did not realize is that only advanced
> or knowledgeable astronomers know what a Ritchey Chretien telescope is,
> and the only people that they could dupe is a novice astronomer who
> does not even know who George Willis Ritchey was.
>
> Meade made a mistake on this one.
>
> Matthew Ota
>
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> > Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
> > > >get rid of CI through unrthical means either...
> > >
> > > Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> > > unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> > > I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> > > (and I think its arguable)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> > Ritchey Chretiens. That said, as I indicated in my blog entry on the
> > subject for October 11 (<http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/>), I still
> > think it's a pretty silly lawsuit. OTOH, it's tough not to think "what
> > goes 'round comes 'round" after the equally foolish and destructive (to
> > both companies) "north and level patent war." "Live by the sword, die
> > by the sword" also springs to mind. ;-)
> >
> > Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> > SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> > to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
> >
> > Peace,
> > Rod Mollise
> > Author of:
> > Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> > and
> > The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> > <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:12:25
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

You, of course, realize Apple is one of the most sue-happy companies in
the US???

AM wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> > unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> > I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> > (and I think its arguable) the name of a particular optical system.
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
>
> Ok.
> I personally think both are just as bad.
> Well... maybe Meade worse, they just flat
> out tried to run CI out of $$ and business.
> And Meade really could have afforded to call
> their new design something else.
> I would prefer an RCOS telescope over a Meade tho.
>
> Personally, it is disgusting the US business model
> of trying to sue your competition out of business...
>
>
>
>
> AM
>
> (on another different Mac... I have three now...)

Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:07:06
From: Melweaver
Subject: re:Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

The petty name calling and foul language is getting quite nauseous.

There are a number of actions in the complaint filed by Azari et al.
It is my understanding that the Plaintiffs were not the first to
complain to Meade about their claim that they had improved on the
Ritchey-Chretien design. There are numerous optician designers all
over the world that are angry about Meade's false advertising
tactics. Even Meade's own designer said he would not call it an RC;
he would call it an aplanatic cassegrain.

The suit is about FALSE ADVERTISING. The LX200R is copied from Rutten
& Venrooij published in 1988 (page 83) first edition. It is not a
"new" or "innovative" design. The RCX is a
variation of the Ronald R. Willey, Jr. SCT design (just a different f
ratio) published in the April 1962 issue of Sky & Telescope, pp.
191-193. Innovative? More Advanced? Ritchey-Chretien? Hardly.

One of Meade's dealers settled WITHOUT MONEY and changed their
advertising to be dropped from lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit mentions
damages, it doesn't mean damages will be paid. Just a tactic to get
parties to sit down and reach a compromise.

Mel
---------------------------
Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:12:54
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Hey moron, are you suggesting that the RCOS employee guy who did the
tracking software for the RCOS scopes does not know the difference
between the RCOS and Meade scopes? If so, I have a bridge for sale.

Hey moron, read the Petition before you pontificate. RCOS, Star and Dan
Azari are all after money from Meade and the dealers--in excess of
$2,400.000 between the three of them. Azari wants triple the $2,800 he
paid for his Meade in damages because "he thought it was identical to a
RCOS" Give me a f king break? Even you can't be that dumb!

Hey moron, do you approve of Dan Azari filing a legal Petition full of
misleading lies? Committing fraud on the Court?

And, moron, next time around, try answering all the questions posed.

William R. Mattil wrote:

>
> What is it that makes a software person a "great" judge of an optical
> system ? Or more or less prone to advertising BS ? And really does it
> matter ? An individual contacted a telescope dealer and was persuaded to
> purchase a Meade in lieu of a *real* Ritchey. This could have been
> anybody and it has likely happened before from other salespeople at
> other retailers as well. If you take the time to read the RCOS position
> you will find that they aren't after any money at all. They want the
> false advertising stopped. Which it would be if Meade had any character.
> But after the success from their last suit against Celestron they are
> probably feeling a bit full of themselves <g>
>
> I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
> his position is relevant. It would probably make a better defense to
> simply deny that the employee ever suggested the Meade.
>
>
> Bill

Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:29:17
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: re:Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

The suit is NOT about simply alleged "false advertising". Plaintiffs
alleged that they LOST over $800,000 in PROFITS ( appears they have
quite a profit markup, particularly Star on its optics) because of the
Meade advertising.

To prevail in the lawsuit, RCOS and Star will have to:

(1) open all their books and records for public inspection ( it is
called "discovery" ) and provide great details about their financial
operations, including their unit "profit markups" which seem very high;
and

(2) Prove positively that large numbers of folks ( what, over 100 ??
), unlike Azari and his perjurious Court allegations, bought Meade
scopes duped by Meade into thinking they were equivalent to RCOS
scopes, resulting in lost PROFITS to RCOS and Star of over $800,000.

Good luck! And look up the legal definition in the US of "ad
puffery"--see, for example the Teleview full page ad on page 3 of the
current Sky & Tel and the Canon full page ad on page 15. Do you really
think a 22mm Nagler will provide a full view of the complete Veil, in
color, on ANY scope?? Do you really think an unmodified Canon DSLR can
outperform a much more expensive dedicated CCD astrocamera,
particularly in Ha?

BTW, the Meade advertising nowhere labels any of its scopes classic
RC's. Read the copy carefully. The Court will.

Do you really think anyone paying $40,000 plus for a scope is going to
be totally clueless on what he is buying? Stay tuned.

The name calling in this thread such as "moron" did not originate with
me but I certainly will respond in kind.

Melweaver wrote:
> The petty name calling and foul language is getting quite nauseous.
>
> There are a number of actions in the complaint filed by Azari et al.
> It is my understanding that the Plaintiffs were not the first to
> complain to Meade about their claim that they had improved on the
> Ritchey-Chretien design. There are numerous optician designers all
> over the world that are angry about Meade's false advertising
> tactics. Even Meade's own designer said he would not call it an RC;
> he would call it an aplanatic cassegrain.
>
> The suit is about FALSE ADVERTISING. The LX200R is copied from Rutten
> & Venrooij published in 1988 (page 83) first edition. It is not a
> "new" or "innovative" design. The RCX is a
> variation of the Ronald R. Willey, Jr. SCT design (just a different f
> ratio) published in the April 1962 issue of Sky & Telescope, pp.
> 191-193. Innovative? More Advanced? Ritchey-Chretien? Hardly.
>
> One of Meade's dealers settled WITHOUT MONEY and changed their
> advertising to be dropped from lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit mentions
> damages, it doesn't mean damages will be paid. Just a tactic to get
> parties to sit down and reach a compromise.
>
> Mel
> ---------------------------
> Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:19:37
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

At one place on Jone's ( Star ) web site, he claims that he does not
use Pyrex for his "premium" optics because "it won't hold a figure of
better than 1/4 wave".

At another place on his web site, he announce his "new astrograph" that
has Pyrex optics and Star and RCOS describe scopes with these optics as
the "ultimate astrograph".

Sounds like fraud on the consumer, right?? Lets get someone who knows
optical glasses to e-mail Star and confirm their web site claims so we
can sue them for RICO ( racketering ).

Hypocritical nutcases in my opinion.

And there is no indication below that Jones is still grinding any glass
personally, Pyrex or otherwise.

Melweaver wrote:
> > "George Normandin...
> > BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star
>
> > Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no
> indication on their new website that the original owner has anything
> to do with the (new?) company any longer.
>
> Paul Jones still owns Star Instruments and has been making outstanding
> RC optics for 30 years. S&T publishes many photos of OGS and RCOS
> telescopes using Star RC optics. He moved from Arizona to Georgia to
> be closer to family. I just talked to him about their new RC
> Astrograph Series optics. OGS and RC Optical Systems are working on
> tube assemblies.
>
> Mel
> ---------------------------
> Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:14:39
From: Melweaver
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

> "George Normandin...
> BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star

> Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no
indication on their new website that the original owner has anything
to do with the (new?) company any longer.

Paul Jones still owns Star Instruments and has been making outstanding
RC optics for 30 years. S&T publishes many photos of OGS and RCOS
telescopes using Star RC optics. He moved from Arizona to Georgia to
be closer to family. I just talked to him about their new RC
Astrograph Series optics. OGS and RC Optical Systems are working on
tube assemblies.

Mel
---------------------------
Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:26:52
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> To show you just how silly this lawsuit is, go to the home page of OGS
> where it is stated that OGS builds "the world's finest line of RC
> telescopes".
>
> See www.opticalguidancesystems.com/
>
> Where does this then leave RCOS--second best; third best to DFM??
> RCOS should sue OGS for "racketeering"?? "Fradulent advertising"??
>
> Such ridiculous nonsense. Wait until "discovery" starts and both RCOS
> and Star have to open their books and records to public
> inspection--this should prove very interesting.
>
> And Dan Azari under oath in a deposition will be a hoot!

No shit, Sherlock! :-)

And there are other Azaris in the mix (with RCOS).

You might find this interesting, too. In the Yahoo "tec-scopes" group
in
message:

<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tec-scopes/message/517 >

dated Tue Nov 5, 2002 9:56 pm we find Dan Azari writing:

Hi Valery and all,

I was the first recipient of a RCOS/Aries ion milled optical set and,
having owned a hand/machine polished RC, I can attest to the improved
surface smoothness. Although the p-v wave front error is about 1/6
wave, the rms error is an amazing 1/55 wave. The high quality of the
optics was apparent the moment I first looked through this instrument.

I agree with Valery: The high-tech approach to complex optical figures
has advantages.

Clear skies,
Dan Azari

And he was fooled by Meade's advertising? What a crock.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:44:02
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> Funny, I compared your website to that of Jack Newton and Jason Ware (
> with their Meade astrophotos ) and concluded you ought to buy a Meade.

Maybe you ought to try
http://gallery.rcopticalsystems.com/gallery/m101hallas.html

That you would be Tony Hallas by the way. In my opinion more talented
than Jason Ware who gets the equipment from Meade gratis

Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:33:59
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

The cowboy "optics expert":

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2957601460028179417WfAaRq

This is truly funny. Be careful you don't shoot your foot off podner.

Jan Owen wrote:
> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:VgGhh.24045$wc5.7035@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> > rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
> >> shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
> >>
> >
> > Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in
> > your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all the
> > regulars by now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bill
>
> Who?
>
> {;^)
>
> --
> Jan Owen
>
> To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
> Latitude: 33.6
> Longitude: -112.3
> http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:03:51
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

To show you just how silly this lawsuit is, go to the home page of OGS
where it is stated that OGS builds "the world's finest line of RC
telescopes".

See www.opticalguidancesystems.com/

Where does this then leave RCOS--second best; third best to DFM??
RCOS should sue OGS for "racketeering"?? "Fradulent advertising"??

Such ridiculous nonsense. Wait until "discovery" starts and both RCOS
and Star have to open their books and records to public
inspection--this should prove very interesting.

And Dan Azari under oath in a deposition will be a hoot!

rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:19 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > At one place on Jone's ( Star ) web site, he claims that he does not
> > use Pyrex for his "premium" optics because "it won't hold a figure of
> > better than 1/4 wave".
> >
> > At another place on his web site, he announce his "new astrograph" that
> > has Pyrex optics and Star and RCOS describe scopes with these optics as
> > the "ultimate astrograph".
> >
> > Sounds like fraud on the consumer, right?? Lets get someone who knows
> > optical glasses to e-mail Star and confirm their web site claims so we
> > can sue them for RICO ( racketering ).
> >
> > Hypocritical nutcases in my opinion.
> >
> > And there is no indication below that Jones is still grinding any glass
> > personally, Pyrex or otherwise.
> >
> > Melweaver wrote:
> > > > "George Normandin...
> > > > BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star
> >
> > > > Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no
> > > indication on their new website that the original owner has anything
> > > to do with the (new?) company any longer.
> >
> > > Paul Jones still owns Star Instruments and has been making outstanding
> > > RC optics for 30 years. S&T publishes many photos of OGS and RCOS
> > > telescopes using Star RC optics. He moved from Arizona to Georgia to
> > > be closer to family. I just talked to him about their new RC
> > > Astrograph Series optics. OGS and RC Optical Systems are working on
> > > tube assemblies.
> >
> > > Mel
> > > ---------------------------
> > > Posted viahttp://www.AstroForum.it
> >
> > > --
> > > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
> shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 01:08:36
From: Melweaver
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

> William R. Mattilwrote:
rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of
the
> shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
>
>
Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in

your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all
the
regulars by now.[/quote:d6de79c424]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Good post!
Mel :lol:
---------------------------
Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:33:28
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

The "ballroom dancer" weighs in.

BTW sport, film is no longer on the leading edge for astropics.

Pathetic.

See www.celestial-images.com/

William R. Mattil wrote:
> rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
> > shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
> >
>
> Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in
> your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all the
> regulars by now.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:31:01
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Ahhh-the "ballroom dancer" weighs in. Pathetic.

William R. Mattil wrote:
> rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
> > shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
> >
>
> Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in
> your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all the
> regulars by now.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:39:16
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Tell you what sport--you have an interesting definition of "ultimate".
If you can't see the contradictions in the Star website claims, I can't
help you. You seem to be saying the more expensive RCOS scope is for
both visual and astropics unlike the cheap, Pyrex RC version which is
for astropics only. Don't you have that backwards??

And I have two new defendants for the Star and RCOS racketeering
lawsuit---Sky & Telescope magazine and its senior editor, Dennis di
Cicco. Dennis's 6 page review in the Febuary 2006 issue is a glowing
report on the RCZ400, taken from "5 months of work with the scope,
producing hundreds of astropics".

Have you ever even seen one?? I'll bet not and I know Dennis has
forgotten more about telescopes than you will ever learn. His first
paragraph in his review says it all:

"With its radical new optical design.... the RCX400 is as revolutionary
today as the Schmidt-Cassegrain was when it was introduced.......the
RCZ 400 line....fills a significant gap that EXISTED BETWEEN SIMILAR
APERATURE SCHMIDT-CASSEGRAINS AND CUSTOM-MADE RITCHEY-CHRETIEN
REFLECTORS. AND WHILE THEY ARE PRICED LIKE THE FORMER, THEY DELIVER
PERFORMANCE LIKE THE LATTER.

Dennis is just another Meade shill, right? I would invite anyone in
this group to refer me to their website where they are getting better
results with their astropics than Jason Ware is getting with his
RCX400. See www.galaxyphoto.com. Dennis and Jason have probably done
more to sell the RCX400 scopes than all the ad copy out there.

Only an idiot would buy a scope of this quality, believing it was a
"pure" RC and equal to the RCOS $50,000 version. It is damn close
however; close enough perhaps to slow down the RCOS and Star
price-gouging.

You "experts" who have never had your hands on real high-end equipment
OR produced any really good astropics are a joke.

Melweaver wrote:
> I refuse to stoop to M104's level with unfounded personal attacks. He
> probably doesn't even know who Paul Jones is. And, yes, Paul is still
> personally grinding and polishing mirrors. I spoke to him personally
> when inquiring about the astrograph.
>
> Note that the Astrograph is made from Pyrex and the prices reflect
> that. The professional series is made from AstroSitall (a zero
> expansion glass equivalent to Zerodur and ULE) and prices reflect
> that. Astrographs are for astrophoto use only and RCs are for
> photo/visual use - thus the difference in quality and price.
>
> Meade and Celestron use Pyrex and claim diffraction limited. Star also
> claims diffraction limited using Pyrex. "Ultimate" in this
> case is justified because it has the flattest field of any production
> cassegrain currently on the market without the use of a field
> flattener and NO
> COLOR.
>
> M104? Are you really Mr. Murdock????????
> ---------------------------
> Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:08:41
From: Melweaver
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I refuse to stoop to M104's level with unfounded personal attacks. He
probably doesn't even know who Paul Jones is. And, yes, Paul is still
personally grinding and polishing mirrors. I spoke to him personally
when inquiring about the astrograph.

Note that the Astrograph is made from Pyrex and the prices reflect
that. The professional series is made from AstroSitall (a zero
expansion glass equivalent to Zerodur and ULE) and prices reflect
that. Astrographs are for astrophoto use only and RCs are for
photo/visual use - thus the difference in quality and price.

Meade and Celestron use Pyrex and claim diffraction limited. Star also
claims diffraction limited using Pyrex. "Ultimate" in this
case is justified because it has the flattest field of any production
cassegrain currently on the market without the use of a field
flattener and NO
COLOR.

M104? Are you really Mr. Murdock????????
---------------------------
Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:44:28
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Dec 18, 10:19 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> At one place on Jone's ( Star ) web site, he claims that he does not
> use Pyrex for his "premium" optics because "it won't hold a figure of
> better than 1/4 wave".
>
> At another place on his web site, he announce his "new astrograph" that
> has Pyrex optics and Star and RCOS describe scopes with these optics as
> the "ultimate astrograph".
>
> Sounds like fraud on the consumer, right?? Lets get someone who knows
> optical glasses to e-mail Star and confirm their web site claims so we
> can sue them for RICO ( racketering ).
>
> Hypocritical nutcases in my opinion.
>
> And there is no indication below that Jones is still grinding any glass
> personally, Pyrex or otherwise.
>
> Melweaver wrote:
> > > "George Normandin...
> > > BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star
>
> > > Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no
> > indication on their new website that the original owner has anything
> > to do with the (new?) company any longer.
>
> > Paul Jones still owns Star Instruments and has been making outstanding
> > RC optics for 30 years. S&T publishes many photos of OGS and RCOS
> > telescopes using Star RC optics. He moved from Arizona to Georgia to
> > be closer to family. I just talked to him about their new RC
> > Astrograph Series optics. OGS and RC Optical Systems are working on
> > tube assemblies.
>
> > Mel
> > ---------------------------
> > Posted viahttp://www.AstroForum.it
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 00:22:13
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:

>
> I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
> shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
>

Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in
your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all the
regulars by now.

Regards

Bill

Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:10:34
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:VgGhh.24045$wc5.7035@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder if m104galaxy is the previous CEO of Meade or just one of the
>> shills that Meade pays to say how wonderfull Meade is.
>>
>
> Actually he is a complete idiot and had you *not* included his rant in
> your reply most of us would have missed. He's been killfiled by all the
> regulars by now.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

Who?

{;^)

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:58:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Jan Owen wrote:

>
> Who?
>
> {;^)
>

Jan,

You have wisdom beyond your years .... :)

Merry Christmas!

Regards

Bill

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:06:00
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:RrJhh.24076$wc5.1449@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Jan Owen wrote:
>
>>
>> Who?
>>
>> {;^)
>>
>
> Jan,
>
> You have wisdom beyond your years .... :)
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

And a very Merry Christmas to you, too!!!

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:31:30
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

What difference does it make how Ware gets his Meade equipment?? He
still gets outstanding results from his 14" RCX400, doesn't he??
Comparable to what a very few are getting from RCOS scopes--isn't that
the point??

And I am not going to dis Tony Hallas ( we have some mutual friends )
but I can tell you he is on a very limited budget and probably also got
his gear at a "special price" from RCOS. But, again, so what?

As Tony and Daphne would be the first to admit, the CCD astrocamera
used, the filters used ( Astrodon or similar ) and the user's skill at
post processing the images, are every bit as important as the scope
optics. A "pure" RC scope, in and of itself, is no magic answer to
great astropics these days no matter how outrageous its price is.

And the guy still using film and Parks reflectors ( Bill Mattil?? ) is
a joke--he is not in the same league with Hallas and Ware. He clearly
is also clueless on the governing law. "Plonk" indeed--he has the
mindset of a 10 year old.

All three, I suspect, know the difference between the RCX400 and the
RCOS scopes--that is the issue in the lawsuit, isn't it?

And how do you get around the fact that Dan Azari ( the RCOS employee )
lied in his lawsuit against Meade? OK--because Meade is the
Defendant?? The Courts won't share that view of Azari's clear contempt
for the federal court system I don't think.

rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> > Funny, I compared your website to that of Jack Newton and Jason Ware (
> > with their Meade astrophotos ) and concluded you ought to buy a Meade.
>
>
> Maybe you ought to try
> http://gallery.rcopticalsystems.com/gallery/m101hallas.html
>
> That you would be Tony Hallas by the way. In my opinion more talented
> than Jason Ware who gets the equipment from Meade gratis

Date: 19 Dec 2006 20:51:45
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> Tell you what sport--you have an interesting definition of "ultimate".
> If you can't see the contradictions in the Star website claims, I can't
> help you. You seem to be saying the more expensive RCOS scope is for
> both visual and astropics unlike the cheap, Pyrex RC version which is
> for astropics only. Don't you have that backwards??
>
> And I have two new defendants for the Star and RCOS racketeering
> lawsuit---Sky & Telescope magazine and its senior editor, Dennis di
> Cicco. Dennis's 6 page review in the Febuary 2006 issue is a glowing
> report on the RCZ400, taken from "5 months of work with the scope,
> producing hundreds of astropics".
>
> Have you ever even seen one?? I'll bet not and I know Dennis has
> forgotten more about telescopes than you will ever learn. His first
> paragraph in his review says it all:
>
> "With its radical new optical design.... the RCX400 is as revolutionary
> today as the Schmidt-Cassegrain was when it was introduced.......the
> RCZ 400 line....fills a significant gap that EXISTED BETWEEN SIMILAR
> APERATURE SCHMIDT-CASSEGRAINS AND CUSTOM-MADE RITCHEY-CHRETIEN
> REFLECTORS. AND WHILE THEY ARE PRICED LIKE THE FORMER, THEY DELIVER
> PERFORMANCE LIKE THE LATTER.
>
> Dennis is just another Meade shill, right? I would invite anyone in
> this group to refer me to their website where they are getting better
> results with their astropics than Jason Ware is getting with his
> RCX400. See www.galaxyphoto.com. Dennis and Jason have probably done
> more to sell the RCX400 scopes than all the ad copy out there.
>
> Only an idiot would buy a scope of this quality, believing it was a
> "pure" RC and equal to the RCOS $50,000 version. It is damn close
> however; close enough perhaps to slow down the RCOS and Star
> price-gouging.
>
> You "experts" who have never had your hands on real high-end equipment
> OR produced any really good astropics are a joke.
>
>
>
> Melweaver wrote:
> > I refuse to stoop to M104's level with unfounded personal attacks. He
> > probably doesn't even know who Paul Jones is. And, yes, Paul is still
> > personally grinding and polishing mirrors. I spoke to him personally
> > when inquiring about the astrograph.
> >
> > Note that the Astrograph is made from Pyrex and the prices reflect
> > that. The professional series is made from AstroSitall (a zero
> > expansion glass equivalent to Zerodur and ULE) and prices reflect
> > that. Astrographs are for astrophoto use only and RCs are for
> > photo/visual use - thus the difference in quality and price.
> >
> > Meade and Celestron use Pyrex and claim diffraction limited. Star also
> > claims diffraction limited using Pyrex. "Ultimate" in this
> > case is justified because it has the flattest field of any production
> > cassegrain currently on the market without the use of a field
> > flattener and NO
> > COLOR.
> >
> > M104? Are you really Mr. Murdock????????
> > ---------------------------
> > Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sky and Telescopes current demand profit, Meade is Sky and Telescopes
largest advertiser, Dennis works for Sky and Telescope. Can you connect
the dots?

As for Meade and innovation I remind the gentle reader about MEade and
Televue:

"One of the first prominently ugly episodes in the business side of
amateur astronomy happened in 1985 when Meade took the TeleVue eyepiece
concepts and designs which were available at the U.S. Patent office and
then arranged to have the entire TeleVue eyepiece product line
essentially mimicked one for one at a factory in Japan. The external
similarities of what would be marketed as the Meade "Series 4000" were
obvious: for TeleVue Nagler 4.8 mm, 7 mm, 9 mm, 11 mm, 13 mm Nagler
Meade introduced 4.7 mm, 6.7 mm, 8.8 mm and 14 mm "Ultra Wide" (which
ironically is the title of the Nagler Patent). Similar duplication of
the other TeleVue oculars by design concept, and focal length were done
from the 7.4 mm Plossl up to the 55 mm Plossl (where Meade claimed a 56
mm), and the TeleVue "Wide Field" series. And for every proven
performance specification published by TeleVue, the many pages of Meade
product advertisements claimed an improvement" "Regardless of Meade's
marketing efforts. the amateur astronomy community generally preferred
TeleVue. To some degree this was a loyal response to Al Nagler who is
perceived as the true innovator and a fellow observer "

Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:16:00
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I did look at the RCOS photo Gallery on their web site and was
fascinated to note that most of the RCOS scopes used had Aries optics,
not Star Instruments optics. Very interesting.

And I am also told that RCOS claims to have a waiting list for their
scopes. Thus RCOS proving Meade "stole" sales from them with its RCX400
scopes is going to be a bit of a challenge. Perhaps many folks not only
didn't want to pay 5 times as much as they would for a Meade RCX400
with substantially identical performance, but also didn't care to wait
6 months to get their scopes.

Finally, a fascinating comparison between a 32" RC and a 12" Meade
RCX400 on M-13. Follow the mouse click to go from one to the other. In
my opinion the Meade shot is better than the big RC in color fidelity
and goes just about as deep even with the huge size disparity:

www.mistisoftware.com/Astronomy/RCX_RC32_m13_Mark.htm

Can we say "diminishing returns" on paying a huge premium for a "true
RC" ???

>
> Hi Valery and all,
>
> I was the first recipient of a RCOS/Aries ion milled optical set and,
> having owned a hand/machine polished RC, I can attest to the improved
> surface smoothness. Although the p-v wave front error is about 1/6
> wave, the rms error is an amazing 1/55 wave. The high quality of the
> optics was apparent the moment I first looked through this instrument.
>
> I agree with Valery: The high-tech approach to complex optical figures
> has advantages.
>
> Clear skies,
> Dan Azari
>

And Azari was thus fooled by Meade's advertising as he stated to the
Federal Court? What a crock.